Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Who are wondering whether we've started. We're waiting for you. So, Assembly Members, we're in room 2100 in the swing space, so come down. All right. For the Committee today, we have the following items on consent. Item number two. AB 598. Item number five, AB 1413. Item number six, AB 1878. Item number 10, AB 2247.

Item number 13, AB 2934. Item number 15, AB 2728. And those are our consent items. The rest we will hear as soon as we have an author. Assembly Members who have a Bill to present in Senate housing, I would recommend that you come down to room 2100. Don't want to make us cranky.

The Senate Housing Committee will go on recession. We had been informed that Assembly floor session was over, but it is not over. So we can't proceed until the Assembly floor session is finished. And then the Assembly Members will be able to come and present their bills. So we're going to take a recess until that time.

Thank you. Item one, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. And we will follow that with Assemblymember Quirk-Silva's second item. And the first one is AB 2579. And that would be followed by AB 2023. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, I first want to thank the Committee consultants for working with our office on this Bill, and we accept the Committee's proposed amendment. AB 2579 grants building owners with three or more multifamily dwelling units a one year extension for an exterior elevated element inspections. In essence, balconies.

Current law establishes inspection requirements for exterior elevated elements and buildings with three or more multifamily dwelling units. Inspections were to be completed by January 1, 2025 and subsequently every six years. California issued a State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and public health concerns hindered the ability for the number of inspections that needed to take place.

Planning and scheduling inspections, especially with the lack of specialized inspector workforce, can take up to four months to arrange. Once scheduled, these inspections, which can be intrusive to the building and the apartment, can take up to three weeks to complete. Residents could not or would not allow inspectors and to their residents to actually do the required inspections.

With many people working from home, either due to the shutdowns or hybrid work environment, access for inspection became more challenging in addressing any necessary repairs even more so. Additionally, there has been an acknowledged shortage of qualified inspectors, a problem exasperated by the pandemic. We know that the health and safety of everyone is vital and these inspections need t take place. But with me today to provide testimony and answer any questions, we have Chris Kahn, Advisor on behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California. We appreciate the author for bringing this Bill forward, and thank you to you and the Committee for hearing it today. My Members are very committed to the Senator Hill Bill and the process and the inspections that are required. They ramped up to meet the timelines, and unfortunately, Covid put a stop to that. Revamping that getting it going again has taken some time, and we want to make sure we get it right. So we think the additional time provided by this Bill will ensure that we do get it right. So thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions.

Let's see if there's any other witnesses in support on this Bill. Any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in opposition. We don't have a quorum yet, so we can't take motions, but we can take commentary. Not seeing any. I will make a comment. I appreciate that you took the amendment. This is a particularly - while I can understand the delay of the pandemic, I had a good number of constituents die due to a balcony incident.

Just at the time, respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Which is what led Senator Hill to do the Bill in the first place to get these inspections. So I a little bit remiss to give it any extension, but was willing to grant the a shorter time period than the Bill first requested, which is what the amendment that you took now. So I appreciate that. And I have an ... on the Bill, but again, we can't do motions yet. So without any other comments, we'll take your close.

Great. You can go to your next Bill now. It's item seven, AB 2023.

And again, backtracking.

Thank you for your consideration on that, Madam Chair. Going to AB 2023, Madam Chair and Members, again, we want to thank you and your team, Allison Hughes, for all of her work on this bill and accept the committee technical and updated amendments. We are presenting AB 2023, which creates parity in the housing element review process.

The housing element must be timely and reflect the community's plan to address their share of the region's housing needs. Once the Department of Housing agrees a local housing element complies with the law, the housing element has a rebuttable presumption of validity.

This means that HCD's findings of compliance receives deference in court, and any party challenging the element has a high bar to meet to prove that HCD was incorrect. However, there is no equivalent provision if a city or county does not meet the requirements set by HCD or does not take any action regarding its adopted housing element.

This loophole allows certain cities, again, a small percentage, to disregard HCD's expert findings and bypass recommendations aimed at strengthening their housing elements to achieve compliance. This oversight undermines the state's efforts to ensure that all jurisdictions adopt and enforce robust, legally compliant housing elements.

While the majority of California jurisdictions do adopt housing elements that HCD deems compliant, there are exceptions. This oversight undermines the state's efforts to ensure that all jurisdictions adopt and enforce robust, legally compliant housing elements. I believe we all have a part in addressing the state's housing crisis.

With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions from the Committee are Anya Lawler, Legislative Advocate with the Public Interest Law project, and Rafa Sonnenfeld, Policy Director with YIMBY Action.

We're not going to take testimony yet. We're going to establish quorum first. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, we have a quorum, so that means we can, when the time appropriate, take motions. Proceed with your testimony in support.

Good afternoon. This is Rafa Sonnenfeld representing co-sponsors YIMBY Law, the legal arm of the nationwide pro-housing movement and an affiliate of YIMBY Action. We're sponsoring this bill, which is a good government bill to help empower HCD to be the regulator that everyone wants them to be with regards to housing element policy in both approving good housing elements and rejecting good housing elements.

This bill provides parity in the law to allow HCD to do its job. We've listened to the concerns from the opposition for this bill. Unfortunately, those concerns are against the intent and direction that this bill is going. Available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anya Lawler here today on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project and also the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the other cosponsors of this bill. I think that the author and my co-sponsor have covered it well.

This is really a commonsense bill to make sure that HCD has deference regardless of whether they find a housing element in or out of compliance, and also addresses some funky timing issues so that there's a clear line by which a jurisdiction has to have adopted a housing element in order to be in compliance with the law, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? This is the me too time.

Mark Stivers from the California Housing Partnership. Me too in support.

Great.

Catherine Charles on behalf of Housing California in support.

Matthew Menji with Inner City Law Center in support.

Great. Any others in the room for support? All right. Do we have opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended position. A couple concerns with the bill that I wanted to point out.

One, that we don't think that we should make it where each city has more power to determine that we're out of compliance without having requirements about the specific findings. But that said, if we are going to make it equal with the certification, it should be the same legal standard that we have.

So, it would be a presumption of validity to the findings as opposed to a presumption of invalidity that would reduce some confusion on the ground.

And the second part that I think is more concerning is the amendment language that says that when you're amending the housing element, you would have to revisit for another 90 days, 30 days public comment. That would be 120 days.

It would make it harder for our cities to get into compliance with their housing element process and this continuous back and forth. All for transparency, but there are several public comment periods before that the first draft is listed to HCD.

So, we're concerned that by including a longer timeline for amendments, that that would slow down the process for cities to get into compliant. We want to make sure cities have the ability to do that so we can make sure we're meeting the statutory requirements.

So, with that, I will respectfully ask for a no vote and appreciate all the conversations we've had with the author's office. We'll continue to have those, and I've offered amendments and hope to find common ground. Thank you.

All right. That's our main registered opposition, but if there's any other opposition in the room, you can come to the mic and add your me too. All right. Seeing no other opposition Members, any comments? Senator Seyarto.

I would like to weigh in on this. Thank you. So, we've had some experiences with cities, and the dealings between the cities and HCD and communication lines and the ability to get back to each other has been a source of major contention and frustration.

And I don't think putting our thumb on the scale of the agency that has caused a lot of that is going to help at this point, I think there is room for improvement in HCD's process to be able to help cities become compliant.

Instead, we have a mechanism that encourages them not to be compliant so they can get onto the penalty phase. And I think that is wholly unfair to cities. I think that there are better ways of doing that. And it starts with HCD. HCD has to be a better agency.

And I think a lot of our other agencies need to be better at serving their clients, and their clients are us and the cities that we live in.

And so, I'm not going to be supporting this bill because just on the principle, I do not want to give an agency that already is not doing well with the power they have even more power. So, that's my concerns with the bill. Thank you.

Any other Members? Oh, Senator Ochoa Bogh, go ahead.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. I actually want to echo the concerns that my colleague has expressed with regards to how to address the issue right now.

And I think from just the previous committee hearings that we've had here in Housing with regards to HCD, I think we need to help facilitate a better organization mechanism for HCD in order to evaluate the housing elements for various cities.

We have to address that area first and get it to a stronger, more standard and a standard form of assessing, rather than being kind of subjective to whoever is in charge of reviewing these plans of actions before we move forward on enforcing something.

Because I think, as my colleague stated, we give them a little bit more power to a system that is actually not functioning the way it should. I think we're going to be in a bigger mess moving forward. So, on that, on that.

Well intended, and I understand that goes, but I think we have to get to the root of the problem before we actually start addressing the other areas. So, with that, I also will not be able to support the measure today.

Members, do we have a motion on this bill or any other comment on it? Thank you. Senator, I appreciate your bringing, I mean, excuse me, Assembly Member, I appreciate your bringing this bill.

I don't share the perspective of my colleagues who just expressed that HCD would either be not responsive, or I think what we have done through the Legislature is empowered HCD to hold our cities accountable and to make sure that they are in compliance with our housing laws.

We have about 3.5 million housing unit shortage in this state, and while it is certainly not the only, we can't blame cities alone for that.

The fact that many have dragged their feet on either changing their zoning rules or processing permits and such, and have not been in compliance with various of California's laws, whether it's the Housing Accountability Act or others. I think this is needed. And my recommendation is an aye vote on this.

You have taken the amendments, so we have a motion, and I will allow you to close.

Respectfully ask that for an aye vote.

Okay, then we'll take a roll call.

Motion is do pass as amended, and re-efer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

All right, we'll leave that bill on call until our absent members and appreciate your presenting. And we'll now go to item number three, AB 799, by Assembly Member Rivas. We could take a motion on the first apologies, Miss Rivas. We'll start right away, but we'll take a motion on AB 2579 moved by Senator Seyarto.

Are you okay all with the roll call, or do you want to make any comments? This is about balcony inspections. It's item one on the agenda. All right, so we have a motion. Let's do a roll call.

Motion is do pass, as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. [Roll call] Eight to zero.

All right, we will hold that to our absent members, but we'll go now, like we said, to miss Rivas. AB 799.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I would like to start by thanking Max for his thoughtful and thorough analysis of this Bill. AB 799, The Homelessness Accountability and Results Act requires agencies and departments administering state programs to provide the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, or Cal ICH, with fiscal and outcome data from grantees and the individuals and families they serve, which will be made publicly available.

This Bill also requires the creation and maintenance of a strategic funding guide, a one stop shop for local grantees to navigate new and existing funding opportunities to make sure all potential funding sources are effectively utilized to combat homelessness. Finally, AB 799 adds the Governor's tribal advisor to the Interagency Council to ensure the unique perspectives of our tribal communities are considered in homeless initiatives. As we all know, homelessness is an increasingly growing problem in our state. In 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness in California rose to nearly 185,000. To address this ongoing crisis, nine state agencies collectively spent billions of dollars in state funding over the past five years administering at least 30 programs to prevent and end homelessness.

Cal ICH is responsible for the coordination, development, and evaluation of the efforts of these nine agencies. However, the 2024 State Auditor's Report on Homelessness found that the state lacks current information on the ongoing costs and outcomes of its homelessness programs. Because Cal ICH has not consistently tracked and evaluated the state's efforts to prevent and end homelessness. This audit recommended that the Legislature require Cal ICH to mandate reporting by state agencies of cost and outcomes of state homelessness programs, develop specifics of data collection, and compile and report this cost and outcome information to the public.

AB 799 was developed in response to these findings to enhance accountability standards, ensure our state dollars are used efficiently and effectively, and that our local agencies maximize their impact in our communities. Today, I have with me to provide testimony Sharon Rapport from the Corporation for Supportive Housing. And for any technical questions about the State Auditor's Report on Homelessness, I have Chris Paparian from the State Auditor's Office. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Rapport. I'm the Director of State Policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, a national nonprofit working to solve homelessness. I'm also here on behalf of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. One of the most impactful components of AB 799 is that it adds a tribal representative to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.

Indigenous people are five times more likely to become homeless than Californians in General. As tribal members have stated before this Committee, tribal governments face unique challenges in preventing and solving homelessness, as members face worse housing conditions, far higher rates of risk of homelessness, and less access to shelters and homeless services than people living in other jurisdictions.

AB 799 acknowledges the need for a tribal voice on the Interagency Council. The Bill also advances collaboration with local governments as partners in solving homelessness by making it easier for local governments to find information about state grant programs and by providing, promoting strategic use and leveraging of state dollars.

Finally, without creating additional burdens on front line staff, AB 799 requires the Interagency Council provide greater transparency in how grantees are using state funds, by publishing annually how our state taxpayer dollars are spent and the outcomes these funds achieve. So for these reasons, I ask for your aye vote, and I would recommend for greater transparency and to track our progress, adding a requirement that the state publish exits to permanent housing.

This measure would gauge the effectiveness of the state's response to homelessness, as homeless counts do not accurately reflect how effective our local jurisdictions are helping people exit homelessness for good. I'd also like to recognize Assemblymember Rivas' tremendous leadership on homelessness during her tenure in the Assembly. AB 799 is one of many thoughtful bills Assemblywoman Rivas has championed to make our state more effective at addressing homelessness. And I know I speak for many homeless advocates in thanking her for her leadership in this space. Thank you.

Is there an additional primary witness or no.

Someone is available for technical questions from the State Auditor's office.

Let's take the 'Me Too' then. Others in support just come in say.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of United Way Greater Los Angeles in support.

Natalie Spievack with Housing California in support.

Great. Any others? Okay, do we have a lead opposition witness? None on file, so. All right, anybody in the room that wants to add opposition? Seeing none. Let me turn to the dais Members.

Happy to move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Not seeing any other questions. Assemblymember, you may close.

Thank you. By including tribal representation, expanding funding coordination, and enhancing data collection and transparency, we're taking decisive steps to improve the effectiveness of our homelessness programs in California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. We have a motion, so let's take a roll call.

The motion is due passed and rereffered to the Committee on Human Services. [Roll Call]. 8 to 0.

Great. We will hold it on call till we get our missing Members and we will now go to the fourth item, AB 846 with Assemblymember Bonta.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee for the time spent on this bill, and I accept the Committee Amendments. I decided to author AB 846 to protect low income renters living in publicly assisted affordable housing for significant rent spikes.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit, or LIHTC, is a critical source of funding for affordable housing production and rehabilitation nationwide. Unfortunately, the way that federal law regulates rents for LIHTC units provides no assurances that a tenant's rent will remain affordable over time.

Tenants have to income qualify for LIHTC units and will pay anywhere between 30 and 40% of their income in rent at the start of their tenancy. In LIHTC properties, there is no relationship between a tenant's income and their rent over time. Rent increases are solely tied to increases in AMI.

As we know, for the county in which the property is located, LIHTC property owners are free to raise rent up to the new allowable maximum whenever AMI rises. This means that LIHTC tenants can face unpredictable and often high rent increases. Over time, they can become severely rent burdened, paying over 50% of their income in rent.

Despite living in affordable housing, they are not living in housing that they can afford. There is a solution to this problem. States can impose additional restrictions on rents and LIHTC properties, and a growing number of states have taken advantage of this authority.

The Tax Credit Allocation Committee TCAC, which oversees the LIHTC program, recently adopted regulations that apply a rent cap to LIHTC properties as a condition of getting new tax credits.

These regulations allow for a waiver from the cap to ensure the financial viability of a property and also include a number of other provisions that affordable housing developers have raised as critical during our negotiations over this bill over the last 18 months. Including the ability to exceed the cap in order to begin to bring a tenant up to paying 30% of their income in rent.

Unfortunately, TCAC did not believe it had clear legal authority to apply the new cap to existing properties. This leaves tenants in existing properties incredibly vulnerable to the high rent increases that we want to avoid. AB 846 provides the necessary clarity by directing TCAC to establish a limit on rent increases in existing LIHTC properties in California.

I understand and respect the concerns that have been raised by nonprofit affordable housing developers, in particular about the need for some flexibility and to carefully consider how a cap would work within the already complex regulations that govern LIHTC properties, this bill does just that.

By asking TCAC to apply its carefully crafted new rent cap regulations to all existing LIHTC properties, it protects tenants and gives developers the flexibility that they need. With me to speak more on this bill, I have Anya Lawler from the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Great, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anya Lawler with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, part of a broad coalition of groups supporting this bill. I apologize for the laptop. I just realized that the statement that was printed out for me was not correct.

So doing what I have to do, let me start by acknowledging that this is uncomfortable. Members are being asked to choose between the low income tenants who live in affordable housing and the developers who build manage these projects. It shouldn't be this way.

We've worked alongside affordable developer groups for years, advocating for resources and policies to provide, preserve and expand California's insufficient supply of homes affordable to people with low incomes and provide housing stability for the millions of renters who face severe levels of rent burden in the private market. This is not where we thought we would be after 18 months of negotiations.

Earlier this year, when TCAC adopted carefully crafted regulations supported by most developer groups, we thought we were close to agreement. These regs addressed many of the concerns that developer groups had raised, including the desire to have any cap occur through regs.

The desire to always be able to bring a tenant up to paying 30% of income in rent, the desire to be able to exceed the cap on the portion of a voucher tenant's rent paid by the Federal Government, and the desire for a waiver process of a property is under financial stress.

The only task left now is to make sure that these regs can apply to existing properties, something that TCAC wanted clear direction from the Legislature in order to do.

It is true, and we understand that nonprofit affordable housing developers are under tremendous financial strain right now thanks to skyrocketing insurance, high interest rates and unpaid rent from the pandemic, rent that should have been covered by federal rental assistance but that ultimately fell far short of meeting the needs.

But these problems cannot and should not be addressed by imposing significant rent increases on low income tenants. Any of us in this room who is lucky enough to own a home knows that the typical mortgage involves a monthly payment that is close to 30% of your income. This fixed payment provides predictability and stability.

Imagine being a low income tenant who waits for years to secure an affordable unit, only to find out that your rent can potentially go up significantly in some years and that there's no upper limit on the percent of your income that you can be charged in rent. This is not a workable system.

Over the course of working on this bill, I've heard the argument that even if a tenant at a LIHTC property ends up paying 60% of income in rent, that is still better than 80% of income and rent in a market rate property. But is it really better?

It's hard to see how any level of severe rent burden is acceptable, especially in publicly funded affordable housing that is supposed to deliver the kind of housing stability for low income tenants that homeowners enjoy.

The system is broken. 846 is not the fix, but it's a critically needed improvement for tenants that still allows affordable housing operators to impose what are still fairly high rent increases. We've spoken with many mission driven, nonprofit affordable developers while working on this bill.

They've told us that they do not and would not raise rents anywhere close to the proposed cap. Given that it's unclear why the cap is an issue, I want to specifically address the notion that there is a contract issue here.

TCAC has always had authority to change regulations that apply to existing contracts, so long as those changes do not impair the express or implied terms of those contracts. It's actually written into the standard regulatory agreement that developers agree to that the agreement might be changed to incorporate new regs. A modest rent cap does not impair the contract.

Federal law leaves states free to regulate rents, and the Biden Administration has actively encouraged states to do so. A number of other states have already adopted caps or other forms of regulations on LIHTC properties in both existing and future LIHTC properties without incident.

It's disappointing that this issue is coming up after we have worked diligently to address previously articulated concerns.

We look forward to continuing to work with our affordable housing partners to deliver the funding we need to provide homes for all Californians with low incomes and to create an affordable housing finance system that provides stability for affordable housing developers and tenants alike. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we'll see if there's any other Me Too's in the room.

Hello, good afternoon. Michelle Pariset on behalf of Public Advocates and the Western Center on Law and Poverty co-sponsors in support.

Hello. Shayna Englin with the California Community Foundation in strong support

Hi, Emily Augusta on behalf of National Housing Law Project and Public Interest Law Project in strong support.

Neha Saju on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty co-sponsor in support.

All right, let's see if there's any opposition here. Primary registered opposition. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. I wanted to say thank you to the staff of Assemblywoman Bonta and herself for all of the work that has happened over the last year and a half.

Unfortunately, I'm here to say we are still in opposed unless amended position because we don't think the bill goes far enough. I think, as my colleagues have articulated who are actually supportive of the bill, we do think that the TAC regulations, the TCAC regulations, actually are a really thoughtful process that balance the needs of both the tenants and the developers. Unfortunately, the bill right now also allows local ordinance to move forward.

With over 480 cities in the State of California, we could be facing a patchwork of just different regulations that are not quite as thoughtful and do not create a process that balances the needs of the tenants and the developers.

As, again, the support kind of articulated, there are a lot of costs right now that are threatening a lot of the viability of these projects, and we're very concerned that unintended consequences could actually create more hardship for tenants. However, we have been having lots of conversations and hope that additional discussions can lead to some type of compromise. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? No other witnesses in opposition? Okay, so let me. Members, any questions or comments? Do we have a motion? All right, we have a motion from Senator Blakespear. Assemblymember Bonta, would you like to close?

Thank you. Just because I had to have my health aide, aka my mother, come up today to drive me up after surgery, I want to just share a little bit her story. She's always been so generous with allowing me to do so. She moved to California to be able to retire and help be involved in her grandchildren's lives, moved into an apartment that had received LIHTC funds.

And as a retired person on fixed income, went from being able to afford that rent barely to not being able to afford that rent because of the incremental rent increases that occurred over the course of time. We can't build affordable housing that isn't actually affordable for everyone. We invest hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that our communities can be maintained whole. I think this legislation is simply aligning with TCAC's proposal to limit rent caps prospectively for LIHTC programs. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. All right, we have a motion, so let's do a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll have that bill on call, and we will now go to, let's see, I think it's Assemblymember Berman who is next. That's item eight, AB 2199.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. In 2018, I authored legislation to provide a CEQA exemption for infill housing projects within unincorporated areas of a county to be a tool to help address our housing crisis. Prior to this, there was already an exemption for infill projects, but only in cities.

The exemption in my previous bill, which sunsets next year, incorporated the same narrow conditions as the exemption in cities, as well as provided further limitations to prevent sprawl. According to State Clearinghouse data, the exemption has been used for nine projects, ranging from 10 to 98 housing units, for a total of 378 units.

And as California continues to face a housing crisis, AB 2199 would extend this existing tool for an additional seven years to promote infill housing projects in our counties without adversely impacting the environment. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I am joined today by Chris Lee on behalf of Urban Counties of California.

Great. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. We're an association of 14 of the largest counties in California here as the sponsor of AB 2199. As Assemblymember Berman mentioned, this is really a parity bill that provides an infill exemption in our unincorporated communities that, that's very similar to the one that exists within our urbanized cities.

And as the Assembly member also mentioned, there's a lot of parameters here to ensure that this is really focused on the most urban parts of the unincorporated area, the parts that if you were just driving through town, you probably wouldn't realize that you'd left the city limits.

And so that helps us to preserve ag land, helps us to reduce vehicle miles traveled in greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and helps us to provide an option for affordable housing in the unincorporated communities where millions of Californians live. Cities and counties have the same responsibilities under the housing element to plan for their future housing needs.

But until AB 1804 passed, there wasn't an equivalent infill exemption to help encourage housing in those environmentally friendly parts of counties. And for that reason, we're proud to sponsor AB 2199 and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Let us see if there are others in support.

Hi there. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the Association of Environmental Professionals in support. Thank you.

Hello there. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Great. Any others? No. All right. So do we have, I can't remember right now if we had formal opposition to this bill.

I hope not.

We don't. Yes. So any in the room who want to weigh in on their opposition? All right. Seeing none. Let's see, members, if you want to weigh in. Any comments or questions? Oh, keep your hand. Good, good. I'm glad you heard that. We all can use self-control at times. All right, so Senator Cortese has moved. Assemblymember Berman, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. Let's take a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, we will hold that bill. We've got a couple of missing members, and we will now move to item nine. AB 2240, Assemblymember Arambula. We're moving right along.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I want to begin by thanking the committee for all of the work, as well as the advocates and stakeholders who have shared their input on this bill. I understand that further conversations are needed as we continue to work collaboratively.

Farmworkers should be treated with the dignity and respect reflective of the essential contribution they make to California's agricultural economy and to our local communities. Before modern migratory farmworker housing centers were established, many lived in overcrowded substandard motel rooms, makeshift shafts, shacks, or near orchards and streams without plumbing or safety.

In response, in 1965, California provided migrant farm workers and their families with subsidized seasonal rental housing from April to November. Today, the demographics of farmworkers have changed over the years as most are settled with families.

Currently, farmworkers must reside outside of a 50-mile radius of a center for a minimum of three months in order to qualify for the migratory farmworker housing. This is devastating to the children whose school years do not align with those closures and whose families are required to separate as a condition of residency.

In my district, as an example, those who are in Parlier Unified from grades three through 11 who are a part of the Migrant Education group. Over 68% did not meet English language arts proficient for their grade levels and over 78% did not meet math proficiency for their grade levels. Frequent relocations are devastating to our migrant children's success.

AB 2240 authorizes Migratory Farmworker Centers to allow residents the option to live in their homes at a migrant unit year-round and removes the requirement that the farm worker reside outside of a 50-mile radius of the center in the off-season.

In 2023, in the Sacramento Bee, there was a survey of seven migrant centers and 150 farmworkers. Results from the survey confirmed that 80% of the farmworkers would continue to live at that center if it remained open year-round. About 69% of the farmworkers with children said migration negatively affected their kids' education.

AB 2240 ensures that farmworkers and their families are not separated because of outdated policies and that their children's education is not interrupted. I want to again close by thanking the committee and the many folks who will be advocating here today.

All right, let's see if you have a primary witness in support.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to share my experiences as I campesino, who lived in a labor camp during my youth and urged your support for the approval of AB 2240.

I'm Doctor Cirenio Rodriguez, retired former Professor at CSUA Sacramento, UC Davis, UCSB, Woodland Community College, and for 30 years I was an elected board member of the Woodland Unified School District and Yolo County Office of Education.

As a young man from 1960 to 69, I and my family lived in Harney Lane Labor Camp in Lodi, along with 15 to 20 other families that came from Los Angeles to work in the fields around Lodi, picking tomatoes, cucumbers, and any other fruits and vegetables that were available.

Our home base was Los Angeles, and we came here in April and left in September because that's when the camp opened and that's when the camp closed. Oftentimes we had no homes to return or even to come and live.

There were times when we would come in late March, our parents took us out of school and we live under bridges, in orchards, in our cars, whatever we could, until we were lucky enough to get a space at Hunter Lane labor Camp.

Then at the end of September, the camp closed and we had to go back to Los Angeles. Oftentimes my parents did not have rented a house because it's too expensive to rent a house and then come out here. So we lived with relatives and garages on the streets.

We were homeless, also under bridges in LA River, until we were able to find proper housing to move again the following year. The constant and yearly moving and uprooting was disruptive and contributed to broken inferior educational experience, as the author of the bill has outlined.

We were taken out of school in late March and returning early October when class already started. The majority of the students dropped out of school at an early age and did not graduate from high school. I was the lucky one.

I graduated from high school, attended community college, and obtained a PhD. I am the one, the exception that represents 2% of my community who obtained a higher degree. But the rest of my cousins and family members, they went into drugs or didn't graduate and suffered many negative consequences as a result of not having a stable home environment.

Every year we had to move to provide food so that you and your relatives and ancestors could eat. We are the ones that provide the food to the American people. In 1990, I published an article in an international journal on research that I conducted on the issues.

I documented the educational problems faced by farmworkers, the sons of farmworker communities. I use this committee to support the passage of AB 2240 and I will read in summary; farmworkers should be treated with dignity and respect, reflective of the essential contribution we make to California's agricultural economy and local communities.

AB 2240 ensures that farmworkers and their families are not separated because of outdated policies and their children's education is not interrupted. It's sad, you know, that after 40-50 years that I experienced that we're still doing the same thing. Please fix the problem and provide permanent housing to the farmworkers that provide the food on your tables. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support?

Yes. My name is Marco Lizarraga, and I'm the Executive Director of La Cooperativa Campesina. We serve over 55,000 farmworkers per year. And believe it or not, don't let my suit misguide you. I also was a farmworker. Most of us Mexicans, when we come, that's where we go to the fields.

So I'm here in strong support of this bill, AB 2240. Please support it. I ask you that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now everyone else is just a Me Too. Okay, so you just come up to the mic, say your name and your affiliation, and then if you support.

Hello. I was just.

Your name and your affiliation.

Hello, my name is Hasmeen. I am a child of farmworkers, and I myself have been a farmworker myself and I am in support of AB 2240.

Great, thank you.

My name is Lauren Ornelas. I'm the founder of Food Empowerment Project. I'm representing Food Empowerment Project Center for farmworker families, which is based in the Watsonville area. We are in support. Also reading? Yeah.

Now you're just going to read who else is in support. Great.

This is from the Buena Vista Migrant Camp in Watsonville area. These signatures were collected on Thursday. The strawberries came in.

Sorry, just list who's there.

3 hours away. So it's difficult for them to come here. Cristian Fernandez, Antonio Orasco. Francisco Ortiz, Veronica Bernay. Danielle Gerardo Solidad. Benjamin Mesa, Maria Del Carmen Leonardo Saul. Hida Mesa Maria. Guadalupe Rocha, Emilio Rocha. Mario Centena. Cesar Fernandez. Yasmin Alison Caledron, Alexis Alvaro. Martina Panto, Ernesto Fernandez, Paolo Fernandez, Maria Reyna, Manuel Monteneino, Delgado, Antonio Sadorocha.

Maria Isabel Medina. Mario Fernandez Elena Espinosa. Luis Maldonado. Jose Antonio Escar Berhad. Danielle Jose Luz Rocha. There's about 100 names here.

Great. Then you can all from the Buena. Excellent. Appreciate it. I think rather than reading the 100, the fact that there are 100 names is sufficient so you can indicate your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Julie Solomon, representing the board of directors of Human Agenda, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, respectfully asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Buenas tardes. Manuel Barajas, Professor of sociology, co-founder of the Center on Race, Immigration and Social Justice. I'm a fourth-generation farmworker and I strongly support the AB 2240. Gracias.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Doctor Anna Santana. I'm a teacher and I'm a daughter of former farmworkers. I support AB 2240. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Doctor Eric Ugalde and I support AB 2240. I am a teacher and a son of farmworker of farmworker families. And as a teacher, I believe that every child can learn and succeed at high levels, no matter where they're from. I agree. Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni on behalf of California Yimby in support.

Any others in the room in support. All right, let us see who. I think we do have a registered opposition. Is there a primary?

Go that way.

Whose primary?

We've got two witnesses.

Okay, please come to the mic.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for your attention. My name is Gabriela Garibay and I grew up in a migrant labor center, in a migrant household until I moved away to college.

I lived during part of each year in the Artesi 3 Migrant Center in French Camp, and my parents, my two siblings, my niece, still live in the center and continue to migrate, continue to work in the fields. I am here today representing the migrant farm worker community that relies on migrant housing centers.

Many of the residents, including my family, are deeply concerned about the impact that this will have in their lives. I would like to share a little bit of the migratory lifestyle and what it means to us. Migratory families and migratory youths move to follow the harvest. Many move within California and others move to other states.

They may work temporarily or seasonally in a variety of agricultural settings, including orchards, farm fields, canneries, plant nurseries, packing plants, etcetera. Some migrant farm workers may relocate multiple times throughout the year, while others may stay in the same area for months or the entire season.

When the season is over, families and youths often return to their home base, whether that is here in California, other states, or for some outside the country. For my family, when we were here, we will migrate from California to Mexico, sometimes to other parts of the state.

Like many other families, we did so by choice, and we continue to do so by choice. I have a profession and I continue to go to the field. I continue to support my community.

Due to this lifestyle, the Migrant Housing Program operated by HCD's Office of Migrant Services was created to address the seasonal housing needs of migrant farm workers. The OMS program provides our families with decent, safe, and affordable housing, temporary housing during the work season. We are very concerned that in its current form, AB 2240 will mean migrants will lose their housing.

Here are some points that we want you to consider when you vote on AB 2240.

So we have a total of five minutes for the two key witnesses. So if you want to share your time, yes.

AB 2240 will open the OMS Center year round and allow farm workers, not just migrants, to leave there. The bill defines a migrant farmworker as anyone that works in agriculture. Migrant means to migrate or move. With that change, AB 2240 would eliminate the Migrant Housing programs in California.

As migrant families leave for the season, their units will be rented out to new families. Eventually, more and more units will be occupied by non-migrant households, and the unique needs met by the migrant housing centers will be lost.

The migrant housing centers units are not equipped to be occupied year-round, and the amount of funds needed to make them livable during the winter will be better spent building a new complex for non-migrant households and increasing the overall supplies of the housing for farmworkers.

Before we eliminate these migrant units, we need to have HCD look carefully at the issue to make sure that migrant farmworkers like my dad, siblings, cousins, friends and neighbors, and the next generation of migrant farm workers don't lose their access to unique and critical source of housing.

AB 2240 will create serious and continuous problems for this vulnerable population, including mental health issues. We actually have some people already in the hospital due to the stress. We had one member passed away, which I think is from the Parlier Center. And there's also a lot of programs that already support migratory children.

We have the Migrant Education Program, we have HEP, we have camp, and other dedicated programs that support our children. We have seen an increase in the rates of graduation. We have seen an increase in people graduating from colleges and going back to the community and giving back.

So your other witness now has about a minute and a half.

Okay, well, thank you so much and please vote no.

Hi, my name is Angelica Maganya and I am here to represent my community from the Harney Lane Camp. We are deeply concerned about this. The implications of the AB 2240. This law threatens to stimulate the Migrant Housing Program, which has been instrumental in preserving cultural and supporting our community of migrant farmworkers.

Although we migrate our communities to education remains steadfast. Many students, including myself, continue with our studies in Mexico. Thanks to the Binational Migrant Education Program, which is an international program between the Secretary of Public Education, New Mexico and California Department of Education. And we have documentation that support this.

Numerous of students from our camp that have successfully graduated from universities. And then we also have this letter for Mr. Arambula. Which the Parlier community has requested us for us to read. For Mr. Arambula.

You have about 20 seconds.

Okay. Good afternoon. The counseling of residents of the Parlier California Immigration Center held a meeting where 90% of the migrant families were against the new proposal of the AB 2240. On three occasions we waited in vain for Doctor Joaquin Arambula to inform him of the devastating information and it will affect our community.

This has cost us emotional instability and mixed feelings. We appreciate that you please visit our centers and we have many unanswered questions. I hope to have you have your support and presence in this center.

Now, these are just adding on your name, affiliation, and that you either support or oppose.

Hello, my name is Andy Cortes and I am against the Proposition of AB 2240. Please vote no on AB 2240. Thank you.

Miguel Garabe, a migrant farm worker. Please vote no. This will affect us all. Thank you. Thank you, Miguel Garabide. Please vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Lorena Perez. No a 2240

Amelia Rodriguez, no a 2240.

No, thank you.

Neha Sajo on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition unless amended.

Mi nombre es Guillermo Perez. No estoy de acuerdo de 2240.

Mi nombre es Josefina Luna Cortez. No estoy de acuerdo de 2240. Y vengo representando al Campo Tres, a veinte familias de mi personalidad. Gracias.

Good afternoon. My name is Rodolfo Aceviro and I'm here to nod on AB 2240 please. Thank you.

Gabriela Garibay, de French Campo Tres no a la proposition 2240.

Mauricio Chavez, no.

Jessica Narajo, no to AB 2240.

Andrea Caballero, no a la proposition AB 2240.

Claudia Miranda no a la proposition 2240.

Angelica Naranjo no a la propuesta 22 AB 2240 we didn't ask for this. Thank you.

Delia Cortez no a la proposition AB 2240.

Nora Maldonado please vote no for the bill 2240. Because we'll affect our children and our families.

Mi nombre es Jose Vera, no 2240.

Juvenal Cortez, a la proposition AB 2240.

Alvaro Hurtado, no a la 2240.

Buenas Tardes, mi nombre es Susana Escobal, vengo de Artesi Tres, French Camp CA, y no a la 2240 por favor.

Emmanuel, no on AB 2240.

Fatima Mosqueda and no to AB 2240.

Carolina Mendoza no a la a 2240.

Yolanda Ruiz no a la AB 2240.

No a la AB 2240.

This is Maria Martinez, and I said no on AB 2240 thank you.

Israel Lopez no a la 2240.

Berta Duarte no alaventidos quaranta.

Mirea Martinez, no a la propuesta AB 2240.

Alicia Soto no a la propuesta AB 2240.

Maria Menchaca no a AB 2240.

Maribel Ambris no a la propuesta AB 2240.

Ana Lopez no a la propuesta AB 2240.

Ruby Cortez no a la propuesta AB 2240. El Campo somos una familia una community sana libre de delinquencia libre de alcohol libre de drogas. Gracias.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who is testifying in opposition? All right, we'll turn it to the committee now. Senator Seyarto.

I understand what you're trying to do, but what I'm seeing is that we're trying to solve a housing issue by taking away an issue that people have already molded their lives around. And those need to be, those need to stay separate. We can't, you know, I run into this a lot.

It's like, I feel like sometimes we're trying to solve people's problems who don't need to be solved. They don't have a problem. You know, when I was a young kid and we were poor, I didn't know we were poor. We lived our lives the way we needed to live our lives, and we were happy doing it.

And so, you know, in this respect, in this, this particular bill, I'm concerned about, if you're getting rid, you know, if you're going to fill all this housing permanently, then what about the people who are truly migrant workers who come in, work for three or four months, and then move on to go somewhere else?

And it is up to them to live that lifestyle and ensure that their kids are doing the things that they need to do. And they seem to be happy doing that. And so I'm afraid this is going to disrupt their lives way beyond what we're going to be doing benefit-wise.

If we want to build housing for people that need year-round housing, then let's do that. We have lots of bills that are trying to do that. No clapping, folks. No clapping. So that's my concern. I can't support your bill.

You know, I support wanting to build housing for people, but not disrupting other people's lives to do it.

Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to give you an opportunity, if you could just share. And, you know, the support said they want dignity for migrant farm workers, and I think we agree on that. You know, dignity. This is why this program has been in place for a long time, which is really, really great.

Can you talk to me about how we intend to, because creating permits and perfect housing is great. I think the analysis talked about the kids, you know, having to uproot and leave.

I'm reminded of our keynote speaker at our Latino caucus retreat of the first Mexican astronaut who had to go to, like, eight schools in a span of three to five years. I get that premise. How can we do that while maintaining housing for those who will continue to be migrant farmworkers.

I'll start, if I can, with great amount of respect to everyone who came to testify here today. And it's in part because of that opposition that we've made significant amendments to this bill. We've incorporated the fears and concerns and really tried to provide the clarity. The second to last speaker and the opposition said that no estat Claro.

And for many people, they're really struggling with the clarity of the Bill. And so I'd focus with what's in print. And what's in print is providing an option. There is not removing the opportunity for those.

While we're attempting to make sure that we give the clarity that there is no discrimination, that we'll have a right of first refusal, that they'll be able to maintain their living situation as they currently do.

But what we're wanting to do is to give those families who have expressed that interest the opportunity, the ability to be able to keep that stability that's necessary for their children to be successful.

But there could be a scenario where every single housing unit would be converted into permanent because I think the language says, you know, would require all housing units to be made available.

We took an amendment that focused on a sufficient number of units that would be focused on migrants. That was our way to try and create a floor. What the current basis is. I don't believe we're hearing conversations that we're trying to advance or move one versus the other.

What I wanted to do was to lock in where we currently are today with that language. If we needed to tighten that language in any way to show what that floor would be, I'm more than happy to consider that if this bill is able to move beyond this committee.

But for us, what we were trying to do was to lock in where we are today. What we couldn't accept was those families who continue to have to disrupt their education, who continue to have to live with outdated policies that aren't recognizing the changing demographics that are occurring within our migrant centers.

And in the six-year ramp up to this, is there language in the bill that talks about three year into reviewing the process or anything like that, or at six years it just fully transitions over and we don't know if it's going well.

The first year is HCD to collect information and then they'll report back to the legislature. I would remind this body, the principal co-author on this bill is Speaker Rivas, who also has introduced legislation studying farmworker housing that will return in 2026, far before full implementation in 2031.

So we have opportunities to listen to the data, to be moved by the data, and to change as we're focusing on implementation six years out from today.

My final question, Madam Chair, is the redefining what it means to be, I think, one of the oppositions, that this is going to really greatly increase the number of individuals who are eligible. How do we then address the minimum amount of housing?

If we're increasing the definition, won't that just bring an influx individuals and then just, we won't have the capacity for the housing for them?

I'm not seeing it like that, and so I'll frame it differently if I can. California is the only state that requires you to move 50 miles away. At some point when we're an outlier on that side, we have to question whether that policy is the right policy in the first place. Now, we've made some improvements to that.

Senator Caballero, who's on this committee, has attempted to make some changes to that policy and believe that it needs to be done. But what we're wanting to do is to actually look at the federal definition, which requires that you move every three years. And that's the same type of definition that we're trying to instill.

Again, if we need to work on the language of how that is, I'm more than happy to. Just this morning, we met with the opposition in Speaker Rivas office to go through and to discuss some of these questions and concerns and have agreed to continuing communication and ongoing dialogue.

I've met with the opposition both in my office as well as at Harney Lane, at one of the farmworker OMS centers. I'm more than willing to continue this conversation, to continue to make improvements and ultimately believe it makes the product better. And I'm grateful that we've been able to have, even though it's a tough conversation, a difficult one, one that I'm trying to provide clarity to by what's in print.

I'm hopeful that by working on these definitions that what we're actually doing is making sure that families who want to be able to be in this housing will qualify for it while not being excluded because, under our current definition, we're not able to have that option of being able to keep them since the definition requires them to move 50 miles away.

Thank you. I'm not going to pretend that I truly understand how migrant workers live and work and commute and all of the things that they do on a daily basis. I do have a couple of questions, and the reason why is because. So it says here, prohibits an OMS center from requiring a migratory agricultural worker with a school-aged child to move out of their housing during the child's school year or in a time or manner that is disruptive to the child's academic year based on their profession, how would that work?

What do you mean by that?

So it says prohibits an OMS center from requiring a migratory agricultural worker with a school age to move out. Right. So they're required to stay.

Current policy is that you are there in housing for six months, 180 days, with the option to get 270 days. But current policy requires that you have to move out three months out of the year to six months. That provision allows us the opportunity to give the option to the families. It doesn't require the families to stay in school. It doesn't force them not to migrate. It simply provides the option for those that want it, that opportunity. And hope that answers your question.

It just prevents the center from, in effect. If the family itself chooses to move, that's a different story.

Okay. And then I wanted to understand a little bit about the second. The next piece is OMS center to have the right of first refusal of an available unit approval upon returning to that OMS center for housing following a break in occupancy. Could you explain that a little bit?

Yeah, I wanted to make sure that the current policy, which is happening at the OMS centers, that you're able to migrate and that you come back oftentimes to the very same unit that you left stayed in place. The fear that we heard from many was that if we were going to open this up year-round, that we would prioritize or focus or discriminate against those who would only migrate. And that was not our intent. That was not what we wanted to work on. And that's why that language is the way that it is.

Okay. And then, if so, in my district, it used to be more of a farm area, and it hasn't been for decades. And I have seen kind of the leftover facilities of where these folks have lived historically. And your hope is that with some of these changes in your bill, that there is some upgrades in renovation and some upkeep of these properties? Correct?

Two years ago, within our state budget, we appropriated $30 million for weatherization. I know my office has been pushing within the climate bond discussions to focus on prioritizing weatherization funds in the upcoming cap and trade discussions, the extensions. We will similarly have this opportunity to prioritize and to focus on weatherization. And most of it's around making sure through those winter months that they were absent from November until March or April that we provide heat, that at the moment, many of these units don't have heating to make sure that they're habitable year-round.

Okay. And would you like to address? There was a significant amount of opposition to this bill. Would you like to address some of their concerns? Obviously, not all of them spoke, but some of the points of why they are opposed to this bill.

Yeah, we worked on a document over the last two weeks about myths and facts. That was in large part through multiple conversations with the opposition, trying to address the concerns that we were hearing. We did it both in English and Spanish to try and meet people where they were at, to communicate effectively, to provide clarity. And I'm happy to continue those conversations.

But oftentimes it is needing to make sure that we have trust, and I'm working hard to make sure that we can be as clear as we can about what is in print, what our intent is, and how we are continuing to make improvements to the bill to ultimately address the concerns that we're hearing.

Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I shared some of the concerns that our first witness made, but here's some thoughts that I would like to share. First of all, the statement that it opens up to anyone with agricultural employment is a concern because it does basically import so many more people into a program that is specifically for the actual farm, the migrant farm workers.

It is my understanding that there is a program right now that exists, the Joe Serna Junior Farmworker Housing Grant Program, that exists to help fund new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of owner-occupied and rental units for agricultural workers with a priority for lower-income household. It's also is a program that is focused on permanent housing.

So in my opinion, why take away from what we currently have that serves exclusively to our migrant farm workers rather than seeing what we can do to really expand this additional program that we already have currently in place so that we could accommodate the needs of the additional farm worker community or accommodate those that actually want to stay in permanent housing? Because obviously the people are speaking that they want what they currently have to continue. So why not expand something that we already currently have?

I don't think it's a question of or. One or the other. I believe it's a question of and. It should be both. It should be making sure that we're doing as much as we can with the housing we have within our OMS centers, as well as continuing to build out our Joe Serna centers to make sure that we're providing that opportunity. Not everywhere that we have an OMS center, we have a Joe Serna center.

Not everywhere that we have the opportunity to have migrants, do we have that same opportunity to have permanent housing. Now, this morning, again, when I was having the conversation with our speaker, we were talking about the opportunities and looking at those OMS centers to see if there was surplus lands where we could be able to build some of potentially Joe Serna onto that. And so I'm more than willing as we're focused on implementation.

But what do we do until that time? What do we do with all the kids that are in that housing today who are having their education disrupted? Do we wait until Joe Serna is completed? Do we not care that they're continuing to have outcomes that we should aspire to improve? And so I'm focused on making sure that we're doing both, that we're focused on providing more opportunities for those who are in our OMS centers and helping to build more permanent supportive housing within Joe Serna.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to finalize that. You know, I want to commend everyone that came today to testify in both support and in opposition of this bill. It is what makes our government more effective is to hear your voices. And obviously, there was an overwhelming level of opposition to this bill.

There seems to be a lot of more conversations that probably have to happen in order to have more clarity and into what your intent is, into what the objective is. I would like to, you know, I share many of the concerns that were expressed today and by the opposition. I'm not going to support the bill today because I do believe that the people are obviously very, very engaged in, in making their voices heard. So today I'm going to oppose the bill on behalf of the farm workers that were present today here.

But I will do and would love to work with you moving forward on seeing how we can expand this additional program that would have more housing built, which is what we need in the State of California to allow more options for people without jeopardizing or convoluting what we currently have to meet the needs of our current migrant workers and the goals in which it was intended, which obviously not outdated.

I'm not sure that I agree with that term, that it's outdated because there's obviously still a need to have migrant workers travel across the state. My grandfather was bracero, as you probably already know, and my dad picked fruit and vegetables in the field as well when he was young. So I'm very sensitive to the program.

I think we still need this program and whatever we can do as a Legislature to expand additional the building and construction of housing, I think is where I would like to see moving forward. So with that, I'm going to respectfully not support the bill today, but I commend you for your efforts in trying to address the housing crisis and the education of our children as well.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author for the diligence and work on the bill. It's complex and recognizing sometimes that the programmatic framework is a little behind the realities of. The nature of the workforce is always something tough to grapple with. I think that there are a number of concerns, obviously fairly comfortable that those are going to continue to be addressed.

Fundamentally, I think, Madam Chair, the author here is endeavoring to realign program with the realities on the ground and the nature of the workforce, and it's identifying, on balance, the vast majority of inconsistencies that result in destabilization, frankly, and I think also an element here is an element of stabilization.

And so for those reasons, I think the bill should move forward. Certainly to our colleague, I think you well know that there's some more work to be done. But for those reasons, Madam Chair, I'm happy to be supportive to move the bill out and happy to move at the appropriate time.

Senator Menjivar.

Just because we didn't have the opposition here, could we ask questions to the main opposition? I've never seen this setup.

Yeah, you can.

I don't know where the main opposition went.

You were not to testify to the primary opposition. Yes, you were. So come forward. Please come forward. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Angelica.

Angelica, my question to you is so the Assembly member wants to move away from displacing migrant workers and having to move 50 miles each time. I think he noted that move closer to the federal approach of every three years. When I listen to that hear, like, oh, more sustainable, more consistency for our migrant workers. Why is that approach not beneficial for the groups you're representing?

Well, it's not beneficial in a way, because this is something that I've been doing for the past 23 years. I've been living there my whole entire life. Him coming here and changing this way of the bill that he's trying to make. I understand that he's probably trying to help others, but we mentioned to him that if he's wanting to help others, he should build more houses for those who want to stay the whole year round. And this will affect us in general because this is something he mentioned about three months.

We basically come in the migrant centers from March to December. No. Yeah, March to December, and then we leave and then we come back on March. So it's the same thing over and over and over. There's not a lot of crop during that time of the season. So there's not, you know, it's really hard for us to live here, too, because if you don't have the money to live in here.

Do you get paid, I mean, if you were to stay, so that's three months of the year that you're not there, stay there for those extra three months. How do, how would people make money?

They save up money throughout the whole year that we're here.

So they would be there. They would have the option to stay there. Sorry, sir, I can't ask you a question. I'm so sorry. Apologies.

So that's the 50 miles. Sorry. So the 50 miles is just. It's an option. It's not a legal term that you have to move the 50 miles radius. So that's an option that you have. That's not that you're. I'm telling you, hey, you have to move 50 miles away from this migrant center. It's not.

But if you decide to stay the extra three months, there won't be any jobs there. You just would have had to have saved up to pay.

Yes, because there's not enough of crops or anything to do. And it's winter, so there's no crops at all.

Senator Wahab.

Okay, just a real quick question. So let's say these migrant workers move within the year of the, you know, as she explained, a couple months. Do they still have to pay the rent for the months that they don't live there?

At the moment they don't, is my understanding.

What about through this bill?

If they're going to not be there, it will maintain the same policy that the centers currently have. If they will stay throughout the entire year and are staying extra months, they'll pay for the extra months that they're there, that will be an added cost.

Understood. But my question is. Okay, so let's say they work for six months somewhere in San Jose, right, in my district, when they have to leave because there's no work there at that particular farm, are they having to pay for the other six months that they're not there?

No. So they pay a daily rate. It's based on and it's approximately $12 a day, depending if it's a two-bedroom or a four-bedroom. It equates to roughly 350, 360, $70 for two or three bedrooms. Four bedrooms. We subsidize it as a state to make sure that we can keep it affordable for those who are living.

So it's not about the affordability. It's about the six months that they're not there. I just want to understand.

They're not required to pay. Let me see if I can add a little bit of illumination to this. And please correct me, author, but in the. This bill does not exclude the migratory farmer. If someone wants to stay only three months in this housing, they may do so.

If they want to stay six months, they may do so. It does not prohibit them from doing so. What it does do, which is different than our current program, is allow for a family to stay for 12 months. Now, a family cannot stay for 12 months. They must be moved. So the bill as it's constructed.

Yes, there is concern. I understand from the opposition that this would result in those who are only using it temporarily and not year-round, that they may have no spaces. But the bill is written to allow those who were there and left to return. Now, it is legitimate to be concerned that, you know, we do have a supply problem. We do. Housing, period. Not enough. And that it is conceivable that we could get in a situation where someone returned and it was full. But we don't know that yet.

And this is partly why the bill is structured to require HCD to collect information and to give a report to the Legislature in January 12026 before this is permanent. So the Legislature would be able to act in that case because this does not go into full effect until 2031. That's how it's written. So the concerns that have been raised so far would, for sure not be materialized until at least 2031, if all things proceed exactly as it's written.

But what I would also note in the analysis shows is that, yes, there are still people that move from place to place as farmworkers in California, but that is a far smaller number than it has ever been, and it's a far smaller number than when this program was designed.

And what has resulted partly is that we have now facilities that we are HCD, in effect, operates that mean they contracted often to have another operate, but that are not in full use. So at a time when we have an incredible housing shortage that we would have, in effect, a roof over somebody's head, not being a roof over somebody's head does seem like not wise, and they're not also in great condition.

So do we really want to be as the state, in effect, somebody else made the reference like slumlords because we are providing really substandard. This would also require us to bring it up to a much better habitability standard. So I wanted to make those clarifications and then. Senator Wahab, please continue with your questions.

Thank you. I appreciate that clarity on this. I will say that I will defer to my colleagues who do represent a true rural area and understand this a lot better. I do commend the individuals that have spoken on both sides. Obviously, this is a little bit more complicated and there are concerns. Right?

And I think that my Republican colleagues have listed out some of the concerns and some of my other colleagues have their own concerns as well. I do have concerns as well because I don't want anybody to be left out. Right? Yet I, at the same time, do believe that we need to upgrade our migrant homes. Right?

It's not fair to them. And yet at the same time, we keep seeing, you know, things happen when it hits the news and we haven't been proactive. So I do appreciate this bill and you bringing this forward, and I will support it, but I'm hoping that you will also work with some of the opposition points. Thank you.

All right, other comments? I appreciate the discussion, and I did step in with that clarity because as the chair, this was not an easy bill, just as you have struggled with staff and I had long conversations, I had long conversations with the author, and I think the analysis does a good job of trying to lay out why we have the aye recommendation.

And I appreciate that there's, I want to express that those of you who came in opposition, I do not want you to feel if this committee moves this bill out, that we are being, that we have ignored those concerns. I think the balance that we are trying to strike is to make sure that housing we provide is optimal, is not empty, and that families have as much stability as possible.

I think that if we find in the HCD's analysis and collection of the information that this problem is greater than what has been assessed so far and what is cited in terms of the studies that have been done so far, then the Legislature would still have the ability to make a revision. So that is why at least I, as the chair, made the conclusion and have an aye recommendation on, yes, a complicated bill. And with that, we will. We have a motion, and unless there's any other comments, we'll have the author close and we'll take a roll call.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present today and appreciate all of the discussions. And, yes, this is a complicated bill, but it's a policy that needs to be addressed to make sure that we're providing the stability for our families.

In Parlier, in my district, two out of every three kids are not reading at grade level, and over three out of every four kids are not performing with math proficiency. For us to give those children and families the best opportunities we can, we need to provide the option for stability, which I believe this bill does. I will continue to work on this and have the conversations if the bill moves on beyond today and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. I do need to go down to the Energy Committee, so I will do the roll call now and then hand the gavel over. Go ahead.

[Roll Call]

That's 6 to 1. And we'll leave it on roll call for absent Members. Thank you, Member Arambula. Thank you very much. Mister - Member Zbur is here, and he will be presenting item file number 11, AB 2498. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 2948 which is a bipartisan Bill which is also a priority Bill for both the Progressive Caucus and the LGBTQ Caucus. This Bill is jointly authored with Assemblymember Quirk-Silva and co authored with Assemblymember Alanis and Lee. One of the most cost effective and compassionate ways of reducing the number of Californians experiencing homelessness is prevention, empowering people who are currently housed to stay in their homes.

The state's 2023 to 2024 Master Plan for Aging identifies rent subsidy programs as a key strategy for increasing housing stability for older adults and people with disabilities. Between 2022 and 2023, approximately 10,000 people became newly unhoused in California, and our response has resulted in fewer individuals moving from the streets and into housing. So we're losing the battle because we're not doing enough to prevent homelessness.

AB 2498, the California Housing Security Act, which, which is the product of Assemblymember Quirk-Silva and I merging similar bills and another merger with a Bill that was authored by Assemblymember Alanis, will increase housing security by providing housing subsidies to low income, former foster youth, older adults, veterans, adults with disabilities, people experiencing unemployment or homelessness, and recently incarcerated individuals without regard to an individual's immigration status.

AB 2498 requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a two year pilot program in eight counties across the state, spanning northern, southern, and central regions, while taking into account urban, rural, and suburban representation. To prevent an eligible individual from falling into homelessness, the program will provide an amount necessary to cover the portion of the person's housing not to exceed either $2,000 as a one time subsidy or $2,000 per month for the duration of the two year pilot program.

Various housing subsidy programs exist at the local and state level, but they're isolated and extremely underfunded. Despite California being a housing first state, there are at least 170,000 people experiencing homelessness, a staggering and disproportionate figure that amounts to 30% of the nation's homeless population. The philosophy behind AB 2498 is that it's more compassionate and more cost effective to prevent homelessness than to intervene after an individual or family becomes unhoused.

AB 2498 will reduce homelessness by helping the most housing insecure Californians remain in their homes when they're facing challenging economic times, furthering California's commitment to putting housing first by providing short and medium term housing subsidies to the most housing insecure people in our state. I appreciate the Committee's analysis of the Bill and the assistance of drafting clarifying amendments for the Bill. As this Bill continues to move forward with, we will continue to engage with the California Department of Housing and Community Development for technical assistance. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. Do you have any witnesses in?

No.

Okay. Do we have any 'Me Toos' in support of AB 2498?

Yes, Madam Chair. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Holly Fraumeni de Jesus, Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission in support.

Kim Lewis with the California Coalition for Youth in support.

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

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, one of the co sponsors in support and also voicing support for the City of West Hollywood. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses in support of AB 2498. Now we'll continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 2498. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Members, we have a motion by Senator Padilla. Member Zbur, would you like to close?

Again, this is a Bill that I think is focusing on preventing homelessness as really the most cost effective and one of the most compassionate things that we can do to really meet the incredible challenge of homelessness that we're facing in the state. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Consultant, please call a roll.

Motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Corporations. [Roll Call]. Six to one.

Six to one. We'll leave it on call for our absent Members. Number 12. Member Ward. Welcome. You'll be presenting file item number 12. AB 2638. Welcome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. First, I want to thank some of the Committee staff for their hard work on the bill. Very quickly, AB 2630 would allow the sale and refinancing of HCD finance projects in order to deploy loan repayments into additional affordable housing opportunities.

This bill will unlock millions of dollars in loan repayments for HCD to use to increase stock of desperately needed affordable homes. It would direct HCD to create guidelines to allow owners of affordable housing projects to sell or refinance HCD finance projects to deploy loan repayment for additional affordable housing.

And for witnesses in support, I have Jen Abbott, the Executive Director for the California Council for Affordable Housing.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair and Members of the Committee. Let me begin by thanking you, councilmember, or I'm sorry, Assembly Member Ward, for introducing this essential legislation to protect HCD's portfolio of affordable housing. My name is Jenna Abbott, and I'm the Executive Director for the California Council for Affordable Housing.

Our organization was first established in 1976 as an advocacy organization for affordable housing, nonprofit and for-profit developers, management companies, general contractors, home builders, lenders, and tax credit investors make up our roster of members.

We are proud to be the industry sponsor of this important bill and delighted that so many of our colleagues have joined us and contributed to make this bill a better piece of legislation. Current rules prohibit refinancing and recapitalizing of these valuable and irreplaceable affordable housing units, and this legislation will change that.

Passing AB 2638 keeps older HCD finance projects feasible and available to low-income households, and it is essential for the following reasons. The repayment of HCD loans with accrued interest means those funds can be redeployed into HCD by HCD into additional affordable housing projects.

Refinancing can pave the way for the necessary rehab or refurbishing of the homes to keep them safe and habitable for their residents. The repayment of GP loans allows for the redeployment of capital for additional projects. The payment of any deferred development fees remaining after 14 years allows investors and developers to avoid significant IRS penalties.

And finally, doing this encourages both nonprofit and for-profit developers to invest in more affordable housing projects while also keeping existing projects feasible, viable, and affordable. There is no downside to HCD or the existing projects to allow for this refinancing.

This bill requires that the rent restriction that currently exists remains in place for the balance of the 55-year period. No tenant will suffer or be harmed by allowing refinancing and may, in fact, benefit when their home becomes, when their home is better maintained.

Passing this bill assures that thousands of HCD units will continue to be available, rehabbed, and upgraded for years to come. The bill is a work in progress and will require clarifying amendments as we continue to confer with HCD, and we look forward to continuing that partnership. Thank you for considering our testimony, and I urge your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, ma'am. Now, we will now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2638 here in Room 2100.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Members. Catherine Charles on behalf of Housing California in support.

And Mark Stivers, on behalf of the California Housing Partnership and the California Housing Consortium this afternoon. Thank you.

Mahdi Manji with Inner City Law Center in support.

Sorry, but I have to do this.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 2638. Seeing no lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any other me toos in the room? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. We have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Member Ward, would you like to close?

Thank you, Senators. I know this has been a long hearing, long days that we're in right now.

But the long and the short is just a really important bill that allows us to do what actually you probably would do with a private property, which is the ability to use your existing equity a little bit more creatively without having new loans. Right? Without going back to the state for additional allocations.

We can use and get the authorization while maintaining affordability for the existing, existing tenants to be able to use some of that equity that's been appropriated right into that property over time more creatively and just really get a kickstart to more affordable housing units under construction. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Member Ward. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass and re-refer for the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] Eight to zero.

We have an eight to zero on this measure, and we'll leave it on roll call for our absent members. We have Member Santiago. You ready? Welcome. And you will be presenting file item number 15, AB 2667.

Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to present the bill. Plain and simple, this bill strengthens California's affirmatively furthering fair housing laws by providing stakeholders with more tools to ensure the governments are taking meaningful action to further fair housing. Specifically, the bill requires HCD to develop standardized reporting format for, I always get confused when I say it, AFFH programs and actions.

It also require local governments to make draft inventory sites available, HCD and to the public for at least 90 days in advance of its initial adoption to ensure that its housing element update is clear, and it must also complete the assessment of fair housing prior to releasing the draft inventory of sites.

And it required local governments to include the number of units approved and disapproved by affordability level and in its and by resource area in its annual progress reports. But let's be clear, this does nothing to change anything about housing elements or its enforcement.

This bill simply gives HCD further tools and stakeholders to make sure it's complete, specific, and its consistent information as proposed with AFFH programs and enables stakeholders' additional data points to assess whether or not to the extent that these programs and actions are advancing the fair housing opportunities that we have sought to do in previous bills.

Madam Chair, I'd like to have two witnesses, if that's okay with you. Thank you.

Witnesses, welcome.

Thank you, honorable Chair and members: Amy Hindsheik representing Abundant Housing LA. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots nonprofit organization working to solve California's housing crisis by advocating for more housing at all levels of affordability.

AHLA envisions a California where everyone can find a home that they can afford, that meets their needs in their neighborhood of choice, and where we can live in sustainable and diverse communities that are not car dependent.

AB 2667 would advance this vision and affirmatively further fair housing by requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, to develop a standardized reporting format for AFFH programs and actions, requiring local governments to make a draft inventory of sites available to HCD and the public at least 90 days prior to the adoption of its housing element update, and to complete their assessment of fair housing prior to releasing a draft inventory of sites, and requiring local governments to report on how many units of housing are approved or denied, in which HCD opportunity area, and at which affordability level.

These changes will ensure stakeholders have complete, specific and consistent information about proposed AFFH programs, making evaluation of AFFH more efficient within and across jurisdictions. The bill would also allow stakeholders sufficient time to evaluate a jurisdiction's AFFH proposals.

On a personal level, I would have to say that as a former planning commissioner for a small city of 11,000 people in Northern California during the 6th cycle RHNA, I would have greatly appreciated this information being available when I was attempting to affirmatively further fair housing in my appointed role.

Additionally, when we were attempting to communicate our charge to further fair housing to the community, the provisions of AB 2667 would have been extremely helpful tools. We applaud Mister Santiago's leadership on this issue, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Mahdi Manji and I'm with Inner City Law Center. We're the only pro bono legal services provider based in Skid Row in Los Angeles. We serve folks who are homeless and at risk of homelessness throughout Los Angeles County. In 2019, this Committee approved AB 686 to strengthen requirements to affirmatively further fair housing.

AB 686 require jurisdictions to consider AFFH and their housing elements. Since then, we have seen that many jurisdictions have failed to meaningfully undo redlining or to approve housing in high income areas and invest in low-income communities.

Affordable housing projects and mixed income projects in wealthy communities consistently have slower approvals than housing and low-income communities and localities consistently allow the concerns of high-income communities to block, slow down or downsize affordable and mixed income projects in wealthy communities that contribute to affirmatively further housing.

Failing to build housing close to jobs in high income communities contributes to displacement gentrification in adjacent low-income communities. For example, Culver City, a wealthy community in the west side of Los Angeles, added more than 10,000 jobs between 2016 and 2020. Yet in the entire two decades from 2000 to 2020, Culver City only added 689 homes.

This causes gentrification and displacement in historically black neighboring communities in South Los Angeles, including Inglewood, West Adams and Leimert Park. I want to acknowledge that some of our closest partners have submitted an opposed unless amended letter on this critical legislation.

We're having ongoing conversations to address our partners concerns, and we're very optimistic that we can come to a resolution during the summer recess. I want to thank Assemblymember Santiago for his leadership on this issue and respectfully request your aye vote for AB 2667. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if there's any me-too's in support.

Catherine Charles here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Any others in the room want to register support? Seeing none, we will now hear from the opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Anya Lawler on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, part of a coalition of legal services organizations that advocate for equitable and just housing policies across the state. Regrettably, we remain opposed to this bill unless amended.

It's not a position we take lightly, given our respect for the author, but we are deeply committed to protecting the strength and breadth of the current AFFH law.

We worked alongside Assemblymember Santiago for two years to win AB 686, which is the first and only state level law in the country that creates a legal duty for all government entities, including cities, counties and state departments and agencies, to affirmatively further fair housing.

In 2021, we again worked with the Assemblymember to strengthen provisions in the law aimed at rooting out exclusionary zoning. California's AFFH law is broader and applies to more entities than the federal requirement, and it imposes specific obligations in cities and counties under Housing Out Loud. Notably, it also allows private parties to litigate AFFH violations.

The law requires government entities to take meaningful actions to expand access to fair housing choice and opportunity for lower income households and members of classes protected under both the state and federal fair housing acts in historically exclusionary communities. While also addressing chronic disinvestment in low-income communities in a way that ensures that existing low-income residents can remain and benefit from new investment.

We believe that the proposed requirement to report housing production data based on location on the opportunity maps is a step towards narrowing this important law. The bill sponsors have been clear that this is their goal. They want to create.

They want to amend the AFFH law to create a bright line for determining whether or not a given jurisdiction is in compliance with their AFFH duty purely based on the basis of housing production, rather than on the required analysis of whether a jurisdiction is meaningfully expanding fair housing choice and opportunity in all neighborhoods.

A version of the bill that was in print earlier this year would have done just that. This would effectively redefine and narrow what it means to affirmatively further fair housing in California. The reporting requirement is not only problematic, but it's unnecessary. APRS already contain significant information related to both AFFH and sites.

Jurisdictions must report on their progress and success in implementing their AFFH programs, as well as on the location and affordability of housing developed each year. This information is sufficient to evaluate the extent to which a city's permitting and development patterns affirmatively for their fair housing.

In addition, while very well intended, the maps themselves are an imperfect tool due to the limitations to census data, especially in rural and ex-urban areas, and because they do not incorporate racial segregation, a key element of the laws required fair housing analysis, any reporting based on the maps would be similarly imperfect and misleading.

There are also complexities to evaluating production information based on these maps absent additional information about what is actually going on in a jurisdiction. For example, there are some high resource areas where housing production unfortunately may be unwise due to external fire risk, sea level rise or other climate impacts.

These factors need to be carefully considered in determining whether or not a jurisdiction is complying with the law and creating more equitable development.

We understand that at least part of what is driving this bill is a concern about whether the City of Los Angeles is doing enough to open up exclusionary single-family areas to more housing development, particularly to multifamily development.

The current AFFH law, along with state housing law and a number of other laws, provides ample ability to hold Los Angeles accountable should this prove to be the case, and frankly, all of our organizations would stand alongside the proponents of the bill if that is true and help with that litigation.

For these reasons, we respectfully opposed 2667 unless amended to remove this provision. Thank you.

Other opposition? There's a minute and a half left.

Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the National Housing Law Project in opposition for all the reasons stated by Miss Lawlor.

Any other opposition in the room?

Hi, I'm Michelle Pariset from Public Advocates; also on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Previously co-sponsors of AB 686. In opposition unless amended.

All right. Any other opposition in the room that wants to add on? All right. Seeing none, let's go to the dias. Any comments from my colleagues? We have a motion from Senator Wahab. All right, you may close. Assemblymember.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you for hearing this bill.

Great. All right, we'll do a roll call.

Motion is do pass, and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, we have. Ah. Okay, so this Bill is now out. The vote was eight to two. Thank you Assemblymember. You don't have another. Thank you. Doesn't have any other Bills. Okay, that's. All right. So we have to reopen the roll. Okay. Consent calendar. Good idea. Who wants to make that motion? All right, we've got the consent moved by Senator Wahab. Let's get a roll call.

On consent calendar. [Roll Call]. 10 to zero.

All right, that Bill is out. 10 to zero. That Bill. That's the consent calendar. Many Bills. All right, we'll now. We will now open the roll for those who are absent. We will start with item one, AB 2579. Secretary, for those who - we can do add-ons.

This is file item one. Assembly Bill 2579 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Motion is due passed as amended and rereferred the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. The current vote is eight to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. 10 to zero.

AB 2579 is out. 10 to zero. Will now go to item three. AB 799, call the absent Members.

Current vote is eight to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. 10 to zero.

All right, we'll now go to. Excuse me. AB 799 is out. 10 to zero. We'll now go to item four, AB 846. Call the absent Members.

The current vote is four to two, with a Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Six to two.

AB 846 is out. Six to two. We'll now go to item seven, AB 2023. Let's call the absent Members.

The current vote is six to two, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Eight to two.

That Bill is out. Eight to two. We'll now go to item eight, AB 2199. Assemblymember Berman. Absent Members, please.

The current vote is nine to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. 10 to zero.

AB 2199 is out. 10 to zero. We'll go to item nine. AB 2240. Call the absent Members.

The current vote is six to one, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]. Eight to two.

All right, that Bill, AB 2240, is out. Eight to two. Will now go to item 11, AB 2498. Call the absent Members.

The current vote is six to one, with the Chair and Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call]. Eight to one.

All right, AB 2498 is out. Eight to one. We'll go to item 12. AB 2638. Absent Members, please.

The current vote is eight to zero. [Roll Call]. 10 to zero.

Okay, AB 2638 is out. 10 to zero. And we already closed out 14. Everybody had voted on it. That's AB 2667. So with that, thank you, Members. Thank you, staff. And the Housing Committee is adjourned.