Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome to the assembly housing, and community development committee. We have six items on our agenda today. Three of them are on consent. That's item two, AB2308.

Item three, AB 2397. Item four, AB 2512. To facilitate the goals of the hearing, we will have two main witnesses in support and opposition who will each get two minutes. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become a part of the official record.

We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings.

We are in Room 437 in the Capitol, and we are open in person for attendance of this hearing, and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website. We are going to start now as a subcommittee.

We don't yet have quorum, but we do have an author. So we will welcome up, mister Arambula, item one, AB 2270.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I want to start by thanking the committee for their help with this bill. I will accept the proposed committee amendments, which are on page five of this report so that the California tax credit allocation committee considers the changes contemplated in this bill through the regulatory process. Members, California's farm workers are essential to our state's economy and food supply, and yet they face some of the most severe housing instability in the state.

Because farmworker housing must be located near agricultural land, often miles from services such as public transit, libraries, and pharmacies, these projects have been routinely penalized in the scoring process for affordable housing projects.

Amenity proximity scoring assumes dense service patterns that agricultural communities where farm workers must live to access employment are rarely met. The result is that farm worker housing projects are made less competitive for funding by a scoring system that does not reflect agricultural land use realities. To provide farmworker housing better access to low income housing credits, AB 2270 creates scoring parity with the C tax scoring criteria for farmworker housing projects, recognizing the geographical realities of agricultural communities.

With here with me to testify in support, we'll self introduce.

Good morning, chair and members. Alejandro Solis with California Advocacy on behalf of La Coppertiva Campesina in California, sponsors of AB 2270. La Coppertiva and its members are the federally designated farmworker agencies. La Coppertiva and its members provide education, training, job placement, housing, energy, and other services to California's migrant and seasonal farm workers and rural poor. La Coberativa's member members network serves over a 153,000 clients per year.

We would like to request your support for this legislation to ensure that farm workers farm worker housing projects can fairly compete for tax credits in the low income housing tax credit program. As mentioned by Assemblymember of Rambula, farm worker housing, by necessity, must be located near agricultural jobs, often in rural areas far from these amenities. While farm workers have become more mobile, many times they do not have transportation to travel long distances to do their jobs.

As a result, these projects are disadvantaged, not because they are lower quality, but because the scoring criteria does not reflect rural realities. This creates a structural barrier to housing projects in agricultural regions.

To be eligible for the low income housing tax credits, a project must receive at least 10 points in amenities. To be competitive, it must receive 15 points. Currently, farmworker projects have a difficult time receiving even the 10 points. This is a fairness and equity bill ensuring that farmworker housing is evaluated based on the realities of where farmworkers live and work. We respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Any opposition? I don't think so. Alright.

No opposition? Committee members? Miss Quirk Silva?

Well, since we have no one else here no. No. Yeah. This is actually a really important bill. We know, as you said, how necessary this housing is, and they certainly should have a chance to compete in an equitable way.

What's even a bigger question is that we actually fund these tax credits in this budget. So I'll use this opportunity as the budget chair that hosts housing and homeless that we have to make investments in these low income housing tax credits. As we know, that's the, in many cases, the last investment to get these projects through the finish line.

And I'll add one note, that a prominent candidate, for governor, I asked about housing, as something I would ask as I heard the individual speak and was very impressed that that individual said that they would want to make these type of investments to really push these projects over the finish line, and the individual men mentioned 40,000 units. So I'll be watching from afar, and it would be really great to see these projects get not only invested in but built.

So with that, I don't think we have a quorum, but happy to move the bill.

Right. Give me the opportunity to close.

Thank you, mister chair. And, again, just wanna thank the committee for their work on this bill. Respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you, and thank you for for working with us on the amendments and also for your leadership in this area. We had a few weeks ago or maybe months ago now, a hearing on rural housing, farmworker housing, and some of the areas in which we could do better in ensuring access to some investment and state support.

And I think this is a very thoughtful and necessary approach for us to make sure that these types of projects are treated fairly and that they have access to some of this critically needed support for a need that, you know, we have a significant, I think, gaps in our state in in meeting. So when the bill when we have quorum, we will take motions and take a vote and appreciate your work on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We will now wait for our one remaining author.

Alex Lee. Alex, I'm gonna give you a special award.

What the? I'm the only one.

Alright. So we don't yet have a quorum, but we will have you take your two items, whichever one you wanna do first.

Okay. Let me make sure I have both my two items here. Don't have my two items. Thank you, chair and members.

Which which item are you doing?

AB2552.

I'm Alright. Item number five. AB2552.

Thank you, chair and members. I'm very pleased to present AB 2552. I would like to start by thanking the chair, for working with us and Dory, for, the thorough analysis. Last year's housing trailer bill AB 130 included an innovative program to allow projects with vehicle mile miles traveled, mitigation obligation under CEQA to meet those obligations, whole or in part funding affordable housing near transit through the Department of Housing existing TOD program.

The governor's land use and climate initiative office is currently working on guidelines to implement this program.

AB 2552 clarifies the lead agency may only require a land use development project to utilize this mitigation program if the cost is equal or less to the VMT mitigation measure, and the state has validated the VMT reductions from earlier affordable housing projects. A project may still voluntarily use this program. In this way, to ensure that VMT mitigation program reduces the cost of new housing and achieves effective environmental protections.

I realize that the natural resource committee's amendments to this bill will require us to reopen negotiations with the governor's office on this topic. So this bill is somewhat the work in progress, and I'm happy to bring it back to the committee later in the year if necessary.

Testifying with me today is Silvio Fiera, with CBIA.

Good morning, mister chair members. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, sponsors of the bill. Mister chairman, Wanna echo the comments of the author. We are, really appreciative of you, your committee, the committee consultant for, you know, talking about discussing, a bill that you have expressed concerns about. And so we are really grateful for your appreciation to keep the conversation going.

And we will. You have our absolute commitment to continue to keep you involved as much as you would like to be. So please know that will not stop. That will continue moving forward. You guys also know this is not the bill that was originally introduced, but it is what we have right now.

And I'm gonna tell you from CBI standpoint, our view really is this. Our members would like to use this program. Our members would like to see this program wildly successful. Our view is that if it is going to be that, it does need to be cost effective. It does need to not open a project to further litigation because I can think those are guardrails we would all say, yes.

Absolutely. It should not do those things. That is the spirit in which we look to move forward, and I hope that is the spirit that I think we can get everyone. And, again, I know we now have opposition, and and that's unfortunate, but I hope they would

even say, yes. Those are and that's unfortunate. But I hope they would even say yes. Those are, you know, sideboards that we would agree to. So that is how we plan to move forward.

We really appreciate your openness to do that and look forward to working with you on just urgent I vote.

Great. Others who are here in support of this bill.

Good morning, mister chairman members. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, California Business Properties Associates. Good morning. On behalf of California's Business Roundtable, the California Business Properties Association, and NAHOP California in strong support.

Good morning. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council and California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, chair and members. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We're a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on increasing the supply of affordable homes, ending homelessness, and protecting low income renters. I'm here today in respectful opposition to AB 2552. The author has been a great champion for affordable housing, so this isn't a position we're happy to be in.

But we're very concerned that the amends taken in the Natural Resources Committee undermine the state's new VMT mitigation bank before it's fully implemented. Last year, we cosponsored assembly member WIC's AB 1244, which was the predecessor to the statewide VMT mitigation bank that passed through the housing trailer bill. The VMT Mitigation Bank is an incredibly promising and innovative affordable housing and climate strategy.

The Mitigation Bank connects the state's urgent need for affordable housing to an existing funding stream, which are the requirements under CEQA for large development projects like highway expansions and sprawl housing, to mitigate the additional VMT they cause. Starting this July, projects project developers will be able to easily mitigate VMT by contributing to the mitigation bank, which will fund affordable housing and related infrastructure near transit since research shows this is an incredibly effective way to mitigate VMT.

AB 2552 introduces new requirements that would significantly constrain the program's effectiveness. It only allows a CEQA lead agency to require a project developer to contribute to the mitigation bank if it's the least costly mitigation measure. Making cost the singular threshold requirement will reduce the chances that the VMT mitigation bank will be used. This also goes against core principles of existing mitigation practices under CEQA.

CEQA provides lead agencies with the flexibility to choose mitigation strategies based on multiple factors, including project and community needs, among which affordable housing often ranks high.

By constraining this flexibility, AB 2552 would undermine the program's ability to deliver affordable housing and climate benefits. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose this bill and look forward to continuing to engage with the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and assembly members. I'm Matthew Baker with the Planning and Conservation League. Very respectfully opposed to the bill as as written. We didn't have a problem with the original bill, but we we are we are concerned that, the the current the recent amendments, could undermine the potential the great potential of the EMT Bank to produce more location affordable housing.

Before it's even started, the the still developing methodology for assessing the value of VMT mitigation for the bank and its associated pricing is underway in LCI's current rulemaking process.

And first, we really feel that this rulemaking should should play out before altering it. And we fear that specifying that the mitigation bank only be required to be used when it is the least expensive option will force the methodology to produce as low as price as possible. The program will be pressured to be the least expensive option necessarily under this mandate or or the program won't be usable.

And we are concerned that that pressure to lowball the mitigation price could undercut the efficacy of the program resulting in lower quality mitigation and ultimately less location efficient affordable housing. Mitigation valuation should be an objective science based assessment of the mitigation under being undertaken and not be driven by a subjective goal of making it the least expensive option.

We believe that this would be a detriment to the efficacy of the program and and a poor precedent for healthy value mitigation generally. So we, respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you. Others were here in opposition to the bill.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair members. Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership in opposition, but looking forward to working with the author's office on amendments and also on behalf of Transform as well.

Great. Thank you. Before we go to the conversation, can we please establish quorum?

Haney?

Present.

Haney present Harrison?

Person here. Avila Farias? Here. Avila Farias here. Colosa Garcia?

Here.

Garcia present. Kalra?

Here.

Kalra here. Lee? Lee here. Cor Silva? Here.

Gorgiova here.

Alright. We have a quorum. Committee members, mister Kalra.

Thank thank you, mister chair. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. And and I know, you know, I've I've been in that position before where you get referred to multiple committees and a committee given their jurisdiction, ask for amendments. When you go to another committee, those amendments may impact the jurisdiction. Another committee would like, wait.

You need may not be a 100% on board with those amendments. And so, you know, the clearly have some concern with the with the affordable housing advocates coming in opposition. However, given the fact that you have the kind of you're making moves you you you you have to make amendments on the move. So I I well, Prodox, the better way of saying it, going from one committee to the other.

You know, I I'd like to give you the opportunity to work with the opposition to see if there's a way to kind of balance both the concerns of natural resources and housing to kind of find that balance that not just removes opposition, but I I think at least needs goals meets the goals from both in policy jurisdictions of ensuring we're protecting our environment, but the same time making sure that you have a program that's functional and that we'll be able to build housing, in particular affordable housing.

So I'm asked for your commitment to continue working on that. And if so, then then I'll certainly support today, give you time to to work with opposition and both committees to make sure that, you know, the policy needs are met.

K. Thank you.

Chair Patterson.

Thank you, mister chair. You know, this well, first of all, I support the bill. I think, you know, this this is simply highlighting what I'm gonna use this opportunity again is a major disconnect between policies the state has, which is RENA, which forces development into you know, basically, it forces urban sprawl. It forces sprawl into communities. And then at the same time, we're asking those communities, like, you know, Placer County is one of the fastest growing counties year after year.

And then we're asking those communities that are thirty, forty miles away from job centers to pay you know, to mitigate for their vehicle miles traveled. And, so we either want development in areas like Placer County, or we don't. And if we continue to charge high VMTs, then communities will continue year after year to fail to meet their RHNA targets.

I suspect when this RHNA cycles over that you'll have probably, I don't know, less than 10% of local jurisdictions that actually meet, their RHNA obligations or or meet the, objectives outlined in their RHNA documents. The ink isn't even dry on those documents.

We're already talking about the next cycle. So I think, you know, while this bill is very important, I think the reality is that it it's necessary because we can't have, you know, we can't require development in every county and every jurisdiction. And then also at the same time, say, hey. By the way, you need to pay into VMT mitigation bank and keep your project affordable as well. Makes it it makes no sense.

Totally nonsensical. So but anyways, thanks for the TED talk, and I look forward to supporting this bill.

This works out.

Yeah. Can I get whoever you choose to speak to the opposition on this bill?

Yeah.

Yeah. I'd be happy to. Again, Silvio Farra with CBI. I mean, one of the thing I would first like to say, certainly was not our desire to see opposition after the initial bill was introduced, and we find ourselves where we are today. The one thing and again, I said this kinda in my opening comments.

I have to believe that everyone across the board believes that if we're gonna use this program, it is cost effective because the reality is it's not gonna get used if it isn't.

So I think when we look at what a package of brick and mortar mitigation measures look like, and if that is a path forward that actually is least cost and reduces the cost on housing, it doesn't seem practical that with the housing issues that we have in this state right now that we would force anyone to do something that is more expensive. We actually again, I said this. Our members want to use this program.

I think if this program is designed and comes through LCI well, that it will be a logical reasonable option, but we have to make sure that it is.

And our goal really in this conversation, again, it's not the original bill that was introduced. And what I can tell you from here on out, we are gonna be sleeves rolled up because we do have to go back to the governor's office who agreed to the previous language and say, here's where we're at. Again, here are guardrails of no more litigation. Make sure it's cost effective. What can we all agree to?

So our hope is to get everyone back to where we were, which is happy in a neutral position as this thing moves forward. But that includes also reengaging the governor's office. So we recognize there's a lot of work to do. It's unfortunate we find ourselves where we are, but appreciate the committee.

And as my colleague mentioned, I I understand getting referred to more than one committee and what that looks like. And so I too will agree to let it out, but I do seriously want to see where we it ends up. Because as you know, last year was quite a bit of not only a lot of work to get the bills out as they were, and it was not easy.

I think we were talking about some of this in the last weeks of session related to the VMT and so forth. So we certainly wanna get it right.

Miss Wicks.

Sorry to have missed the whole presentation, but I'll be supporting the bill today. I the framework that we ended up with last year, I think, is the right approach. I hope that we can get back to that place. I appreciate the author pushing this boulder up the mountain, and hopefully, we can continue to work on the bill as it moves forward.

It's unfortunate that it's not where it was, the agreed upon language from last year, but hopefully, we can get the bill into a better place, so I'll be supporting it today.

Alright. We'll give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, chair and members. First, I I I wanna address my my colleague's concerns that you have my office and my commitment to work with the chair and others that are working on this bill. And just a a reminder that I feel equipped to to push this this boulder. My chief of staff and myself come to the table in the housing space for thirty years of affordable housing development.

So Kinda pains me that my housing community development is, you know, opposing my bill that, you know, I I I'm very enlightened to be able to feel that we are gonna be able to find a space that meets all of our needs.

And I know it is challenging to be in multiple committees with this challenging bill, but I'm confident that we we have the relationships and we have the expertise to to work with the chair and the committee, and others on this. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And and thank you, again, for your commitment to work, with us and and your sponsor as well. And, you know, this is was a bit complicated because we we I think at least speaking for myself, I would supportive fully supportive of the original bill.

Took some amendments that I think, as you've heard from various members of the committee and from the opposition, create some concerns, in particular, the least cost provisions of the bill, which I think, as others have said, as we are trying to get the TOD implementation fund off the ground and and and and looking at how to do that, that that particular provision is is a bit out of alignment with how mitigation in this area usually operates. And so I think you've heard that.

We hope that, we'll we'll continue to work together with our staff, and, we will get this to a place where we are all, feeling good about it and establishes those those guardrails that that we agree may be necessary, which can ensure that this is a tool that can be helpful with mitigation, but also, doesn't, create some some unnecessary restrictions or affect it in ways that that, we didn't intend.

So this is, a bill that, we're gonna support today, and I appreciate your leadership and I appreciate your, collaboration with us, and I know you're gonna continue to work with opposition with our committee to get this right. And, with that, we can actually take a motion and a second on it. Alright. I have a motion and a second, and we will take a vote.

Motion to pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson?

Aye. Harrison, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Colossa. Colossa, aye. Garcia? Aye.

Kalra?

Colossa, aye. No. Lee Natvore. Cork Silva.

Aye.

Aye.

Quirk Silva, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Tankipa, Wicks?

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Wilson.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Alright. We have another bill. Item number six, a B2689.

You're ready.

Okay. Thank you, chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2689. I will start by accepting the committee's proposed amendments and thank the chair and the staff for their work on this measure. Millions of Californians struggle to find affordable housing.

However, the demand for far outweighs the supply. According to the committee's analysis, low income households can only afford an average rent in 18 California counties with extremely low households that can't afford the average rent in any county. To make matters worse, low vacancy rates often force families to wait months, if not years, before their the state subsidized units are available for them. Current law does not provide transition for tenants in state subsidized units who began to earn significantly more in their annual income.

AB 2689 would establish good cost for renewal for households whose income exceed a 140% of the area medium income and at in in at least two consecutive years.

As amended, the bill would also codify requirements that managers give ample notice to tenants of their income status and notice of renewal. In order to protect against tenants displacement, over income tenants would only have to lease nonrenewable if they're if they could afford their fair market rent in the residing county. Overall, this bill looks to ensure the deed restricted units are made available to low income tenants without displacing over income individuals to high cost of market.

Due to the scheduling conflict, my technical witness was unable to join me, but I look forward to answering any questions.

Do you have anyone here in support of the bill? Is anyone in any opposition to the bill? I wanna bring it back to the committee. Senator Lee?

Yeah. I appreciate the chair and the committee for the

direction of amendments, which I think are improvement to the bill. But I wanna express, I have very serious concerns about this bill, and I won't be supporting the bill today because I think this is fundamentally a problem in our social safety net pro programs where I understand, of course, we have limited scarcity of very low income affordable housing, but this is in a way punishing people that graduate in income.

Because, fundamentally, these are people who qualified because they're low income, but they perhaps reach a 140%, and that's what we want to see in people, and we should be given the choice to leave if they want to leave or relocate. The committee amendments, of course, make it much more narrow, and I understand that is a good direction in it. But I do ultimately think that we should be setting people for success rather than punishing them for their success.

And that is underpinning a lot of our affordable housing strategies, underpinning a lot of the social safety net even in human services that I see where we should be rewarding people for succeeding and graduating for higher incomes rather than taking away from them. And it ought to be their choice and their family's choice should they want to move out of a place, and we should also be focused on building more affordable housing.

I understand also in previous legislation, not when we were here, that it changed the the property tax treatment of some of these units, and I think that's something we should go back and look at. And we should keep people housed as much as possible rather than cycling them out for other folks. I think it's really important that we keep people housed, especially in that housing affordability crisis we have, and that's why I'm not gonna be able to support them today.

Thank you.

Miss Wilson.

Thank you to the author for trying to tackle this issue, something definitely seen at local level. I think to my colleague's point is, and I'm supporting your bill, so to give context for my comments, it's really important that we build housing at all levels and that when people enter a a a a housing at a lower level because of their income, that they know that as they graduate, they get to transition to other houses.

So we don't keep people in housing that's at a lower level, which prevents someone from a lower level getting in that housing. And so that it should be if I'm getting this type of housing, I should have a aspiration to make more resources so that I can essentially graduate, right, and get to East Level and hopefully fulfilling the California dream or the American dream of owning a home. And so we want that.

And so I appreciate your work on this bill. I appreciate the work of the committee to kinda narrow it because we don't have that system in place now, but we need to move towards that system where people are expected to grow and make more money and not, not make money so that they get to stay in a current housing, but also have a system in place that has housing at every level. So that is an easy transition and in the same community.

Because a lot of times, people wanna stay because they wanna stay at that school. They wanna stay with their neighbors.

And so that all of our communities have all of those types of housing, within the same neighborhoods, is extremely important. So that's work that we have to do. But I think this is a great first step in in saying that we we need to build that framework. And part of it is allowing people to transition to make space for people who are low income, who are unhoused, and not just unhoused on the street, but unhoused in couches. You know?

In my own life, I've had several of people who are in between housing, because of finances, you

know, stay in a room, stay in my house. And so I so there's a lot of those people that exist that are on the streets that need that type of housing that you're creating room for. Thank you. And if did we have a motion already?

Not yet. Motion. Moved by miss Wilson, second by miss Wicks. Miss Quirk-Silva.

The comments by both my colleagues, I definitely agree with. I think this is although it's specific in language, it's very macro in what we really are going to have to talk about in the future, which is when we talk about waiting lists. And at all levels, whether somebody is in a shelter, whether trying to transition to the next type of housing, which we all know there's almost no transitional housing, and then even an affordable housing unit, we know that some people wait for years.

This is all going to be impacted much more by some of the HUD voucher that we see already coming down the line, which I believe in California. And, again, I may be wrong, but it's thousands of vouchers that could be impacted.

So supporting this bill today, I will support it, but it is gonna be incumbent upon this body to really start to look at how are people in line for units, what is the transparency on that. Every county, it seems, and even local jurisdictions handle it differently. We actually did an audit for Orange County that just came out recently on HUD vouchers and how those are distributed. Because one of the things with the very limited access into this unit these units is how long does it take?

Who gets the vouchers?

Who's the gatekeeper of lists? And what you find is it's different in all counties. An example is they compared Orange County to, I believe it was Riverside in Sacramento, and this just came out about a month ago. And what they found is Riverside keeps their housing list open continuously. That means people can just keep applying to be on the list, but it's such a huge list that it's almost hard to understand how people actually get a list.

So it's always open. Sacramento has about a month that they keep it open, and that would mean that if you're in that community and you want to get you know, you have to know when that's open, and there's gotta be some kind of communications to people in that space. But we also know people who are really in that space, so they're not tracking every, you know, whether it be email. They may not even be be having access to email.

Orange County keeps their list open for twelve days.

Orange County keeps their list open for twelve days. So twelve days and a ten year period. So imagine if you're somebody who's really wanting to be on a list, there's this twelve day period and

ten years that you can get added to that list. And if you're on that ten year list, it still doesn't mean you're getting a unit, but at least you're on the list. So, again, not getting too deep here. I do think that there has to be ways for people to understand who's in the units, how long have they been in the units, how long have they been waiting for a unit, all of those things that really can put us in a place where there's more transparency.

And then you actually when you come to, like, is it time for them to move out of a unit because of their income?

That's kind of what you're addressing here. But it's a very, very major topic, and I don't think we've we've worn at the tip of it right now.

Mister Tangipa.

Thank you. And I I just wanted to thank the author as well for this bill. I benefited from the social safety net. I know what we're trying to do when we create housing credits. Not only that help people that start from the bottom and what they can do.

I remember about a year ago when I was in a hearing, I was talking about EBT and SNAP and I and I had asked, Department of Social Services, do we track how many people come off of those benefits? And it was astonishing to me that the answer was no. We don't we don't actually track how many people are coming off of those benefits. And I asked them, how do we

know then that we're not perpetuating poverty and we're just subsidizing it and encouraging people to stay on it? I believe that this brings the proper accountability measures when somebody is doing better. We should provide and create opportunities where the next person who needs it has an opportunity to get into that position as well. I believe the same thing when it comes to food stamps, benefits,

and our general benefits. So I believe that this protects the efficacy of what it's supposed to do when it comes to our benefits here to make sure that we're not we we are creating and maintaining the social safety net, but we're not creating a social safety panic where people are on it perpetually just like what we're seeing in New York.

Where there are so many families that need to get into those areas, but simply because somebody is staying there because they got there first, they're no longer getting out. I do believe that there are a lot of families that need that type of help up. We are one of the largest economies in the world.

We should look like it. We should reflect it, but we also should make those benefits better for those who really do need it. So just wanna thank the author for thinking about it in a logical way and also prioritizing mainly the families who need it most. So thank you.

Alright. We have a oh, you have the opportunity to close.

Thank you. Definitely take to heart as we all know, this space is really complicated and and and to my colleague and my seatmate, I refer to it as the housing economic ladder that, you know, we we should have a social infrastructure that allows you go from, homeless housing to transitional housing to permanent rental housing that it's affordable to homeownership if if that's where we want to go. But as she indicated, we we don't have the levers and the infrastructure there to do that.

And breaking cycles of poverty require us as legislators to invest in those spaces from our education to workforce development and and freeing up those units.

And and that's why I call it the housing economic ladder that you should be able to go step that we should be a state that allows people to move forward And that we all should also be a state that recognizes, certain, of our constituents will always plateau because, of someone, whether you're at the beginning of your life or at the end of your life, you're not gonna increase your income, need affordable housing for the rest of your life.

Right? Or if you have mobility impairments that keep your income at a certain, you know, economic space. So we we have to be able to balance those types of different housing models for our different constituency. And so not everyone's gonna be able to move up that housing economic ladder.

So, this is an attempt, to many more things that we need to, infuse into the housing market for, the various constituents that we have at different economic levels, but ultimately creating the housing stock that, we need, to address, all of our constituent needs from all spectrums of incomes regardless.

So thank you. I appreciate the the consideration, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your leadership and your thoughtful approach to this and for working with the committee. Unfortunately, we don't have, as as you said, an unlimited number of spots for for people who need assistance or who may need assistance at some level. And so we have to make sure that those that do exist are available for those who most need them, but also do it in a thoughtful way and make sure people have adequate notice and adequate support.

And I think we've we've, with the amendments, especially been able to strike a balance there.

And and, again, I appreciate your leadership here. And we have a motion and a second, and we can take a vote.

Motion is to pass as amended. Haney?

Aye.

Aye.

Haney, aye. Patterson?

Patterson, aye. Avila Farias?

Aye.

Avila Farias, aye.

Aye.

Caloza, aye. Garcia?

Caloza?

Aye.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Kalra?

Quirk-Silva, Aye. Ta?

Kalra, aye. Lee?

Lee, no. Quirk-Silva?

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Ta, Aye. Tangipa?

Tangipa, Aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, Aye. Wilson?

Aye.

Wilson, Aye. 11-1.

Aye.

Alright. 11 to one. Why don't we do the consent items? We have a motion and a second, and then we'll go back through the other two.

Consent calendar item two, AB 2308, do pass. Item three, AB 2397, do pass. Item four, AB 2512, do pass. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Harrison, aye. Avila Farias?

Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia. Garcia, aye.

Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Quirk Silva?

Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye.

Tangipa.

Aye.

Tangipa aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Aye. Wilson, aye. 120.

120. Alright. Now we're gonna go back through the others. Item number one.

Item number twenty two seventy.

We have a motion from mister Lee and a second from mister Tanjungpa.

Motion do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and appropriation, and this is item one, AB 2270. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and appropriations. Haney?

Haney, aye. Harrison? Aye. Harrison, aye. Avila Farias?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Lee? Aye.

Lee, aye. Quirk Silva?

Aye.

Quirk Silva, Aye. Ta?

Not coding.

Not coding. Tangipa?

Aye.

Tangipa, Aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, Aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, Aye. 01, my burn Alright.

4. 110.

And we have item number four, adding assembly member tangipa on item number 52552.

Aye.

Aye.

Anybody else?

That is it.

Else. Alright. 11 to zero, and that is all. It is adjourned. Thank you all.

Thank you.