Senate Standing Committee on Housing

The Senate committee on housing will begin in sixty seconds. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate standing committee on housing for Wednesday, 04/15/2026. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will operate as a subcommittee. A few announcements as we begin today's hearing.

First, the consent calendar, which consists of items five, SB 1322 by Richardson, and five, six, SB 1122 by myself, Araghim. I ask that all members please come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. Also like to summarize our public comment procedure for today's bill hearing.

First, we'll take two principal witnesses in support that were designated by the bill author and two witnesses in opposition, and the opposition witnesses should have filed a letter of opposition in the official portal with the committee prior to today's hearing. After which time, we'll invite any members of the public to express their support or opposition to the bill by stating your name, organization, or where you're from, and your position on the bill.

Your testimony is limited just to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. So with that, we will begin to the first, bill, which is in file order, file it in one SB 866 by Senator Blakespear, who is present. Good afternoon. I think you have a special guest as well. Yeah.

He's not testifying on any of these bills in housing.

But you're in support. Right? Exactly. Okay. And if you have any principal witnesses, if you can please join us. Thank you.

Alright. Well, thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'm excited to present SB 866. I accept the committee's amendments.

Thank you for your work on this bill. SB866 require requires all jurisdictions that do not receive HAPP grants, which is homeless housing assistance and prevention grants to include a comprehensive homelessness data strategies and regional coordination efforts in their housing elements. Without consistent planning requirements, many jurisdictions lack clear, data driven strategies to address homelessness. This results in incomplete or inconsistent data on homelessness trends, service utilization, and outcomes, making it difficult to measure progress or to ensure accountability.

Additionally, coordination among cities, counties, and regional partners is often fragmented, leading to gaps in service delivery.

Today, only 14 cities in California receive direct HAPP funding, and that there those are the cities that are required to engage in homelessness planning in order to get that HAPP funding, while the vast majority of cities are not held to the same standard. As a result, most communities are operating without clear comprehensive strategies to addressing homelessness.

SB866 closes this gap, ensuring that all jurisdictions take clear actionable steps to plan for and address homelessness, including identifying available funding sources and resources for homelessness programs, taking inventory of housing, shelter, and behavioral health capacity, and detailing strategies for regional coordination and homelessness reduction. Homelessness does not stop at city or county boundaries, and it's also not the responsibility of only the big cities in the state to actually do the planning. It requires strong regional coordination, and this bill helps to provide that.

With me to testify in support, I have Lewis Brown, Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Thank you, Senator.

You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chair Arreguin and Members of the Committee. As the Senators, Senator said, my name is Lewis Brown, and I'm with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We're a national nonprofit organization and community development financial institution, that has worked for decades to solve homelessness across the country, including in California. Through technical assistance and lending, we have contributed to the development of nearly half a million supportive housing units nationwide.

We are proud to support AB sorry, SB866. Successful efforts to solve homelessness require comprehensive data driven planning. SB866 would require jurisdictions non HAPP jurisdictions to collect and report in their housing element key data, that can help to inform more effective strategic homelessness, interventions.

For example, jurisdictions will be required to report various data on unhoused on their unhoused neighbors living in their communities, as well as data on state, local, and federal resources that can be used to serve, those individuals. The bill also requires jurisdictions to outline their plans to reduce homelessness, improve regional coordination, and implement prevention strategies, to, stave off homelessness for vulnerable populations, including people who are exiting institutions, and folks who have, special housing needs.

Together, these requirements will will promote, both transparency and accountability as well as strategies that are grounded, in data, and are that are coordinated. For those reasons, we respectfully, request your aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Do you have another principal witness in support? Okay. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for SB866. If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. The microphone's on that side.

Sorry.

Adrian Covert with the Bay Area Council in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB866?

Elizabeth Funk with Dignity Moves in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else coming forward to express support, we'll now move to opposition witnesses. We'll take up to two principal opposition witnesses. If you can please join us here. Thank you.

You have two minutes as well to address the committee.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Caroline Grinder. I'm here on behalf of the League of California Cities, which has an opposing unless amended position on SB866. We share the goal of improving coordination with smaller cities to address homelessness, but unfortunately, SB866, 866 places a significant burden on the cities with the fewest resources.

It imposes extensive new homelessness reporting requirements in the housing element for all but 14 cities, specifically targeting jurisdictions that do not receive state homelessness funding. These are the same cities that are already struggling to continue to provide and sustain homelessness services and programs in their communities and that have been advocating for increased access to programs such as HAPP. One of Cal City's main concerns with SB866 is the bill requires cities to collect data that is outside of their control.

For example, cities would be required to report on data such as how many people become unhoused after leaving jails, prisons, and hospitals, systems that are operated by counties, the state, and private entities, not by cities. Despite the city's best intentions, they might be unable to collect this data.

And under SB866, that could leave them with a noncompliant housing element as a result. Additionally, some of the data included in SB866 is already, collected by existing systems. Continuums of care receive federal funding to conduct annual point in time counts to gather key data, including the number of individuals who are unhoused in the community and if they've been unhoused long enough to be considered chronically homeless.

SB866 shifts out responsibility for collecting and reporting that data onto cities without providing any additional resources to do so. We see we failed to see by duplicating these efforts and requiring cities to report on data that's already being collected and publicly shared by Continuums of Care helps further address homelessness in our communities.

Equally concerning, we're not sure how this bill will help improve coordination. This bill requires over 400 cities to collect and report data independently through their housing elements, while counties and larger cities do so through regional plans. Without alignment, I think we risk creating siloed data that's difficult, if not impossible, to synthesize into actual policy at the statewide level. That's why Cal Cities is requesting amendments that would instead align this proposal with the state's existing regional planning framework.

This approach would achieve the same transparency goals outlined in the bill, but would do so through the same process that's already in place for California's largest cities and counties, giving small cities a seat at the table in the regional planning process.

For these reasons, Cal Cities has an opposed unless amended position and respectfully urges continued changes to SB866.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there another principal opposition witness? Okay. We'll now take any members of public wishing express opposition to SB866. Please name organization position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Sharon Gonzalves on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Spencer Street on behalf of the cities of Kingsburg, Oceanside, Placentia, Tulare, Upland, Whittier, and Walnut Creek. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Cassandra Marr on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in in a respectful opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the City of Inglewood. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Very much.

Unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Are there any members wishing to ask any questions or comments? Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Could you address the issue that was raised by Cal Cities in regards to the requirement that it puts a burden on cities and is duplicative of other other reporting that's happening? I'm I'm I'm concerned with that aspect of it.

Yes. Thank you. I'm also concerned with that aspect, but I also recognize that what we have right now is an incomplete patchwork. So when you only have 14 cities that are providing the biggest cities in the state who are providing data about homelessness, homeless people in their jurisdictions, then you are just by nature lacking, you know, 400 other cities that are not providing this data.

So I I wanna work with the opposition and want to recognize that there's absolutely no intent to to have duplicative work or to to create systems that are inefficient, that are not serving any purpose.

But to me, this is similar to the way I come from local government, and I am very familiar with the idea that cities don't want any involvement in statewide problems. Like, they don't cities were really opposed to the RHNA process at all. The idea that there's a deficit of market rate housing and subsidized housing, and we need every city to do its part to provide for that.

And I think this is a similar a similar perspective around homelessness, which is that this is a matter of statewide concern. Our home homelessness crosses boundaries when we only have the biggest cities in the state that are actually doing, standardized reporting and planning for their homeless residents with and as you've seen from the governor's, response to the large cities, in in some ways, those plans then have led the governor's office to say, this is inadequate.

You need to be more ambitious. You need to try to be reducing homelessness. So the the standardized planning and standardized data and having it be comprehensive across the whole state would allow us to have a statewide response. Now now, figuring out the specifics of how and making sure that it works as as well as possible for the cities, but but also with the premise that it actually is their obligation. There are many, many cities that do not see themselves as needing to be involved with homelessness.

They think of it as a county and a big city problem. And even though there are homeless residents living on their streets, they are not wanting to get engaged in this because they don't see it as something that it creates a political win or whatever the the reasons are. There's all sorts of nimbyism and other reasons that peep that cities don't wanna get involved in homelessness planning.

But at base, the premise that they should all be doing the same standardized planning as the big city so that we can have complete data and we can actually have a statewide response so that we can move toward functional zero on street homelessness and homelessness in general. That that to me is a premise that we should be working toward, and this bill is aimed at that.

It's saying everybody does have a role here, every city, not just the big ones.

I appreciate that. Could you respond to what was just said in regards to that? And let me just say that all I have is is small cities, with the exception of the city of Fresno, which is now the only time I've ever represented a big city. And my experience is entirely different that they are actively involved in homelessness. But, your response in regards to that?

Yeah. We we understand the goal of creating more transparency into the efforts of small cities. Our amendments are actually requiring cities to be part of the same regional planning process that's required for the big cities and counties. That's what we're asking for is to be having a seat at the table, increasing access to this data collection just through that other pathway. We think that creates alignment with what everybody else is already doing, and so that's why we're taking that approach.

We're not saying we don't want any transparency. We just think that maybe there's other ways to achieve that goal, that doesn't have to go through the housing element process and doesn't necessarily include some of these metrics, that we think would be really challenging to collect.

And then, what is your opinion of the, COCs and the city's ability to impact what COCs do?

Yeah. Cities do not receive funding to do point in time counts. The Federal Government gives COCs money to do those counts, and they're really responsible for collecting that data. And so that's a huge concern with us in this bill is that, there's real delineation of responsibility when it comes to point in time counts, and we don't want to create any confusion there between the role of the COC in conducting those and the role of the city in collecting some of this data.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Senator Paul, and and Senator Ochoa Bogh, we're on filing one SB866.

Thank you, mister chair. And I I I wanted to pick up on on Senator Cavallero's question. So because although she said she's never represented a big city, you know, several cities in my district, think of of Encinitas and Berkeley and West Sacramento is like these gigantic metropolises. So Eilton is my favorite example with population just under 800. The last two pointing time counts, no unsheltered homelessness whatsoever.

And so I I'm I'm it makes me wonder whether it's a it's a good use of ielten's almost bankrupt budget to be doing this work given where where they're at, Yountville kind of they're they're not they're also in fiscal distress. Basically, they're bigger, but they're not 50,000 people. Same same issue.

So I think part of the question for you was, you know, is there you know, if if if your pit count is, you know, 25 or under, what are do you really need to go through all of this? Because because it's part of the housing element and therefore the general plan, you're gonna your city attorney is gonna tell you, you know, you would like to get this right, it's gonna get litigated, HCD is gonna look at it, somebody's gonna sue you, probably somebody in this room.

So let's you know, we we'll have to hire a consultant or we'll add it to our consulting contract on the housing element. So at the you know, if you're Aisles and you spend a $100,000 complying with it, you don't have any homelessness in the city Or in the outfield, if there's one.

I accept your amendment.

Okay. Alright. Thanks.

I mean, not to cut you off, but there would be I mean, I'm you're not supposed to negotiate against yourself in committee, but I will say that I'm open to suggestions like that. If your point in time count is zero or 25 or you have under a thousand people as your population, that there would be some lower threshold where they wouldn't have the obligation. But, I mean, the these details can be worked out in further committees. But but in general, I I hear your point.

Okay. I appreciate that. I think a thousand is probably too low too low of a threshold for the population,

but I very much appreciate that. You know, we're like, it's with our committees, mostly former mayors as you are as well. So get it, and we do for for the purpose of regional planning and what have you, we do need this information. We do wanna focus the cities on this.

So I appreciate where you're going here and your also your your commitment to to try to make this make make sense for because I know I actually don't wanna force them to participate in the regional things either.

You know, Eilton's police chief is also the city clerk, I think, if I remember correctly. So I mean, they just they don't have time to do all that. So even the opposition amendments don't really get at that problem for the for the for the smallest jurisdictions. So thank you. Thank and thanks, mister chair.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on SB866?

I'll just make a

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I came in late, so I don't, I, I missed the the beginning conversation, but I just I share the same concerns with with Senator Caballero and Cabaldon with regards to small small communities lots of small communities in the Inland Empire within my district. So I'm gonna actually not support the bill today, but look forward to seeing what comes through when it comes back to the Senate. Or are you going to any other committees on or appropriations? Okay.

So I'll just look at it when it comes back to the Senate and reevaluate where you are at at that time.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward and as one of the former mayors here in the room. I was proud of the mayor of Berkeley for eight years and lead the city's efforts to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 45%. Maybe not as good as West Sac, but not bad.

I have a lot of opinions about how we address homelessness in California, and we need to improve the way that we fund local responses to homelessness, which is why I'll just state for the record now, I support the bill in the assembly to provide dedicated a HAPP funding for smaller jurisdictions.

I question why the money a third of it needs to go to COCs when it's local governments and counties, the ones that are actually doing the work on the ground, but that's a separate policy discussion for a a later day.

But I think this bill is really critical to make sure that we're getting data on what local jurisdictions are are doing or should be doing to address the crisis of homelessness, which is a matter of statewide concern, which impacts cities of all sizes, not just large cities who get of 300,000 or more who get direct allocation from the state, but impacts also.

I hear the concern in the leak of cities that, well, if you're gonna make me do this, then you should provide some funding for implementation as well as funding to implement policies and programs. That is a legitimate issue, and we're working hard to secure additional funding in the state budget to fund the HAPP program to make sure we can continue that commitment.

But I think the more we can provide information and facilitate better coordination between all levels of government, we're gonna have a better, more effective response in the state of California. And so I wanna thank the author.

I know that you're going to be making amendments in the next committee, and already taken an amendment around the the interval in which you would have to produce this information, and, you know, look forward to this bill as it moves forward in the process.

But I think it is addressing an important goal, which is this exercise is important because the reality is not every jurisdiction in California thinks that they have a responsibility to address homelessness, whereas homelessness is an issue that affects every community in the state of California, whether you have an unhoused person or not. And so even if you have zero homeless people, we all have a collective responsibility. I think your point is well taken.

If you have zero homeless people, you probably shouldn't have to go through this exercise, so that's a valid point.

But I wanna see us move to move the direction of one, we provide the funding, and two, we have a collective responsibility of cities of all sizes to address this crisis, which is a matter of state wide concern. So I do have an I IRECO, as amended. And with that, I'll turn over to close.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, that commentary, Chair, because it really gets at what the aim of this is, which is to recognize that we do have a collective responsibility. And I represent a part of San Diego. So in San Diego County, San Diego City is about half of the county, and there are 18 cities in San Diego County.

So 17 cities see the City Of San Diego as being responsible for the homelessness problem. And this is one of the biggest things that comes up from the mayor of San Diego is that other cities are not doing their part. They're wanting to use our their the city's two one one number, even when somebody lives forty minutes away and their the city is, you know, very far from the downtown urban core.

But they you know, cities, of course, are strapped and have a lot of things on their plate, and so they would love it if the biggest city or the county would just handle this problem. But the reality is the problem is not getting handled fast enough, and we need to start having a shared a bigger sense of the shared obligation and then also the appropriate funding to make that happen.

And so, you know, I I'm very sensitive to the idea of adding more burden and duplication and consultants and costs and planning to cities that that is not adding value. And so I use that lens to evaluate all bill ideas.

And and to me, this does seem like something that is it's it's such a clear oversight and whole that there are so many places that actually don't have standardized data and funding and or not funding, but a response to homelessness, that we just need to deal with it. So so with that, I I appreciate, the the, again, the committee's involvement in getting this bill, into the shape it's in, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I forgot to be out as a coauthor. So at the appropriate time, I'd love to be a coauthor of the bill. We don't have a quorum yet. So when we do a stop sharing, I think we need two more members.

We'll entertain a motion on the bill.

Okay. Thank you so much.

With that, we'll shift gears to the next bill by Senator Blakespear.

Thank you.

Okay. We're now on file item three, SCR 131 by Senator Blakespear. This is a, a resolution, and so, I'll turn over to the Senator to present.

It's all homelessness all the time in my world. So, this is, like, you know, an hour and I appreciate an hour plus on homelessness in the housing committee. So, this SCR 131 is a resolution that rallies our state, which has tremendous influence on funding and programming, to make an urgent coordinated effort to end unsheltered homelessness in California.

On any given night, as we've talked about, more than a 120,000 Californians live unsheltered on our sidewalks, in parks, under freeway overpasses, and along riverbeds, without access to privacy, safety, or sanitation. The longer that someone remains unsheltered, the greater their risk of preventable illness, trauma, and death.

In fact, the life expectancy for people experiencing homelessness is seventeen years shorter than the general public. Over fifty thousand people nationwide have died while living unsheltered in the past decade. This is a moral failure. It's a crisis that we should not normalize or accept. Unsheltered homelessness is not only a humanitarian crisis, but a systemic failure that undermines public health, community safety, and trust in government.

The Interagency Council on Homelessness has set a clear, measurable target. By 2027, increase exits from unsheltered homelessness into shelter or housing from 42% to 72%. So, the goal from the Interagency Council on Homelessness is that 70% have to exit homelessness. The ultimate objective is straightforward and doable: ensure people experiencing unsheltered homelessness can access shelter or housing with a clear pathway to permanent stability.

But in order to address unsheltered homelessness, we need to do more as a legislature, as does the administration. We often marvel in California and in this nation at what we can achieve when we work together toward a shared common goal, such as sending people to the moon or to the backside of the moon. This but this is no moonshot. It's far easier, frankly, but it does require our focus and determination. The problem is we have an old, outdated, and ineffective mindset.

Because, as I mentioned in the previous hearing, we've we have sought to build people their forever homes when what they need first and foremost is housing tonight, and then they can transition to other, more permanent housing. Interim housing is a small modular tiny home which can be constructed for as little as $50,000 a unit, compared to an average cost of between $600,000 and $1,000,000 for a permanent housing unit.

Yet, much of the state priorities focus on permanent housing only, and we continue to fall farther and farther behind. San Jose and other cities throughout the US have shown that we can get people off the streets and significantly reduce unsheltered homelessness by focusing our efforts on building interim housing.

Using this approach, San Jose has been able to create 1,400 beds within roughly eighteen months. So, it really can be done. We must significantly scale up flexible state investments, such as HHAP, Homelessness Housing Assistance and Prevention. This can be leveraged alongside federal, state, and local funding to more effectively serve those who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness. State, regional, and local governments must better align and coordinate limited resources to invest in both interim and long-term housing solutions.

We can do this and we should do this. Our constituents demand it and we can do better by the folks we walk by every single day who continue to go without housing tonight. With me to testify in support of SCR 131, I have Adrian Covert from the Bay Area Council.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, chair, and thank you members of the committee. California today provides just four shelter beds for every 10 homeless residents. That's the second lowest ratio in the United States and far below the national average of about seven and a half beds for every 10. Our lack of interim options for homeless individuals has produced the largest unsheltered population in the United States.

And California's tolerance for widespread unsheltered homelessness has been catastrophic for the health and safety of unsheltered homeless individuals who suffer staggeringly elevated levels of chronic disease, infectious disease, criminal violence, and accidental deaths.

Deaths like Rebecca Roden, a 40 year old mother of five who was killed not far from here, when a tree fell on her tent during a winter storm in 2023, or Lisa McCool, a 61 year old woman who was murdered in July 2024 outside of her tent along the Santa Rosa Creek Trail, right along the path where I ride my kindergarten son to school every day.

Had shelter been available, these two women and many of the 5,000, roughly 5,000 or so, homeless Californians who die on our streets each year might still be alive. The solution to homelessness is housing, but warehousing Californians alongside our roads and beneath our, beneath our overpasses, underneath our trees, and along our creek trails. For decades, waiting for a Federal Government and reinvestment in housing that may not come is cruel, especially when California today has the means to bring everyone indoors with rapid, high quality, non-congregate interim housing.

SCR 131 makes clear the legislature's priority is for the state agencies and the governor, and for state programs to prioritize the interagency on council—Interagency Council on Homelessness—goal of ending and drastically reducing unsheltered homelessness in the near term.

And for these reasons, the Bay Area Council is proud to support SCR 131 and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we're gonna continue with any witnesses in support support of SCR 131. If you can come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your support on the bill.

Elizabeth Bunk with Dignity Moves, here in support.

Harrison Linder with Leading Age California in support.

...support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we're gonna continue with any witnesses in lead opposition. Seeing none. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition here? Seeing none. We're gonna bring it back to the dais.

Do we have any comments or questions by our members? Okay. We have a motion by Senator Cabaldon. Senator—oh, I'm sorry. I did not see you. I apologize.

I just wanna say I appreciate you bringing forward the resolution. Proud to be a coauthor of the resolution and it, it may seem new and cutting edge, but I know you've been working on it a long time, and then I could tell you that, and I think others here can, and local government people have been pushing, trying to push on this issue for a long time. So, hopefully this helps us get to a breakthrough. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I think I'm gonna—I probably should explain my abstention for the, the resolution today. I don't like to just abstain and not know why I hear what it's done to me. So, I think out of courtesy, I'm not—just explaining.

So, one of the things that I had concerns with is the language on in the in the resolution, which says, "As well as funding all interventions that prioritize housing unsheltered Californians now, it could be interpreted as endorsing significantly increased funding for homeless programs that have not demonstrated significant effectiveness despite prior funding." So, the notion that having an obligation to uplift individuals may risk a transforming a targeted public policy issue into a broad moral mandate without clear boundaries, metrics, and accountability mechanisms.

That is the concern that I have because, as we know, we have invested approximately about $28,000,000,000 in trying to address homelessness, yet we haven't had metrics or evaluations of programs that deem effective. So, when we have a generality where we says we're gonna do all of this and fund all of these programs without having some sort of language saying after or, or standard, or evidence based, or successful evaluated programs, that's the concern that I have with the, with the language in, in, in the, in this resolution.

So, with that, I'm gonna abstain, but I do support wholeheartedly the efforts that the, the state should be providing safety nets for, for those that are in shelter, and providing pathways in which we can empower people with the tools and skills, in order for them to be able to basically escape the unhoused situation in which they live in.

Comments? I'll just say on that note, the author did accept amendments to amend the language to focus on a broad suite of interventions that is not just around interim housing, but also permanent supportive housing. Homelessness prevention is more cost effective to invest in programs to prevent homelessness than to address street homelessness. And so, that was the intent. It's just recognizing that interim housing is extremely important, but there are a whole host of strategies that are also equally important in the state's response to homelessness.

And, moreover, I agree with you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. We need clear metrics. There's a state homelessness plan, but the legislature's never adopted any particular target or set of quantifiable goals towards how we're trying to align funding to achieve a quantifiable reduction in homelessness. And I hope in, whether it's other bills that come before us or maybe even an informational hearing, we'll have an opportunity to dive deeply into that, and how we're spending our money, and how we can be more effective in in reducing unsheltered homelessness.

I think that's a very legitimate point and I thank you for that comment.

I'll turn it back with the author to close.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate that. I mean, this—a lot of resolutions don't come to a policy committee, but because of the nature of the conversation around homelessness and housing in the State of California, it can become very contentious.

And so, this was an effort last year that didn't make it. And so, now, it's in a committee to be worked out and then it'll come to the floor. I'm very open to changing phraseology to try to address your concern because I think this is a very broad call to action that's basically shining a light on unsheltered homelessness. And it's an area that a lot of times has not been called out.

We, we—there's an effort to just consider homelessness part of housing or homelessness in all these different categories, but I'm focused on people living in places that are not living environments.

Unsheltered homelessness as an acute crisis. And so, this resolution is recognizing that there's a whole suite of interventions and housing options that that need to be available for people, but we need to rally around saying the encampments that we are normalizing in California, that's a situation that we should not—we should not be doing that. We need to change—basically change the narrative here. So, that's the point of this.

And as you can see, there are a lot of co authors who, in general, feel like we should do more on unsheltered homelessness.

And you hear this as well from whenever you're talking to groups of legislators about their priorities, so many people put homelessness in the top two. But then you look at the number of bills around homelessness, and the amount we talk about it is really pretty small. So, this is, this is a resolution, but it is aiming to say, let's focus ourselves around unsheltered homelessness.

So, if you can send over, in writing, your concerns to my office, we can see if it's not considered a jailbreak by the chair. We'll work with the chair if there's a change in phraseology to make sure that the resolution still suits everybody.

But I would love to have it be inclusive enough to have you as a co author as well. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. That is acceptable. Is there a motion? Okay. We'll give that to Senator Cortese.

Thank you. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. If the Committee Assistant can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We're gonna go ahead and uplift the, or lift the calls for the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call as well. To my colleagues who recorded your votes, thank you for being here for your service, and we'll recess the committee while we wait for Senator Gonzales. Thank you. The Senate committee on housing iS Back in session. We are going to lift calls on bills, so we can start from the top on the consent calendar, which consists of five item five, SB 1322 Richardson, and five item six, SB 1122 by myself.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill's out in a vote of eight to one. With that, that completes our agenda for today. The Senate Standing Committee on Pub on Housing. Now adjourned.