Senate Local Government Committee

Good morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. Thrilled to start off your day. Sounds like it's going to be a long one. Try to give you something nice and simple, if I can. I am pleased to present AB 306. I believe you both have heard this before, but just for the sake of the record, I'll be quick. I will note thank you to the committee and your staff for the hard work. We do accept the amendments further described on page 6 of the analysis. By way of background, AB 306 would require the California Building Standards Commission to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agency's implementation of the state building code and issue code interpretations. California's 540 jurisdictions independently interpret and amend state building standards, leading to both inefficiency and inconsistency. There is currently no mechanism in our state for a housing proponent to appeal a local code interpretation and no mechanism to apply for a code equivalency determination across multiple jurisdictions. The current appeals process requires local agency participation, which is extremely rare. It also requires prior exhaustion of all local appeals. The limitations of the current appeals process has led to negative outcomes. Navigating approvals across 540 independent jurisdictions is a major impediment to scaling innovation statewide, and it significantly increases costs and timelines for project delivery. In closing, AB 306 addresses the lack of a practical and effective statewide appeals process to resolve code-related issues of broad significance. It does so by establishing a more workable process for resolving building code issues that have statewide implications, while preserving local authority over matters that are appropriately addressed at the local level. With me to speak today in support of AB306 is Mike Malinowski, a licensed architect and consultant with the American Institute of Architects, California, of course, and Allie Sapperman, advocacy and policy manager with the Housing Action Coalition.

Madam Chair and members I Mike Malinowski 46 years You have two minutes thank you each I understand 46 years of licensed architect representing AIA California whose 11 design professionals prepare the design documents for virtually all commercial and high residential development in our state. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for time and collaboration in refining this bill. We're sponsoring this bill because the current system for building code interpretation and appeals creates unnecessary inconsistency delay in cost. The same state code can be interpreted differently across 540 jurisdictions which leads to negative consequences particularly impacting housing delivery. Consider a seemingly simple example, a townhouse. Jurisdictions differ on which code applies. Is it the simpler CRC or the more complex CBC? How occupancy is classified. Is it R2 or is it R3? And the detailing of walls that separate units. This means a set of plans approved on one site may not work across the street. That affects cost, timelines, and sometimes whether a project moves forward at all. AB 306 provides practical, workable process for appeals and statewide code interpretations while preserving local control over local issues and project-specific decisions. This bill builds on models proven to work such as the state fire marshals well used and highly functional code interpretation process through which any person can request clarification of the fire code with results posted online and coordination with local jurisdictions built into that process. AB 306 directly supports housing innovation for example 3d printed concrete homes are already being used through a local alternate materials and methods approval in the campfire rebuild area. That could be scaled, but it currently requires review by jurisdictions one at a time. Each of these approvals can come with unique conditions and requirements, good by efficiency and cost effectiveness. This is a balanced and practical reform. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support of AB306? If you can please come up to the microphone. Thank you.

Quintana with the California Department Association in support thank you Stephanie

Conference of Carpenters in support we have to attack this housing crisis thank Thank you.

I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

okay good morning Assemblymember good morning madam chair and member thank you for having me today my final time presenting in local government here I am pleased to reason AB 956 which clarifies existing accelerator accessory dwelling unit law by allowing a homeowner to build up to two detached ADUs on a property provided those units comply with all existing requirements related to size height setbacks as well as health and safety this bill also clarifies how ADU law applies to HOA's and common interest development CIDs in 2019 the legislature enacted AB 670 to prevent CC&R's from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the construction of a D use however ambiguity and current state statute has created uncertainty regarding which properties within common interest developments are covered by those protections the amendments taken and Senate housing maintains consistency with SB 9 and avoids inadvertently triggering desk density bonus law specifically the bill authorizes either two detached adus that meet requirements or one detached adu and one attached jadu consistent with current law and we brought you this little handout many families use a D use to support aging parents who want to live close by but also even young adults who are finding it very difficult to find an affordable place to live others we know that there have been many attempts for young adults as we just said to find housing and this is another solution over the last several years the legislature has worked diligently to reduce barriers to ADU construction and yet there is still clarity issues within there within how many units where and so forth basically this bill provides the clarity with me today in support of AB 956 and to answer any questions our Mac double policy manager with Yimby and Ryan O'Connell president of how to a DU

Danny Curtin California Conference of Carpenters in support of one of the few products that are actually growing after all these legislation and thank you and congratulations.

Freddie Quintana with the California Department Association in support.

Yeah, thanks for that question. So the issue that we've seen is someone who owns a single-family townhome who wanted to convert his garage into an ADU, and his HOA did not want him to do that. And so the idea here, and his townhome was formally defined as a condominium, although it was, like, on its own parcel with no units above or below it. So the idea here was just to clarify the existing CC&R override, and it will apply it to single-family properties that are, like, technically condos. Yeah, that's the – because all the space around them is all HOA common interest property.

How is that defined in your bill? By right. By right.

Yes. So we're using the current framework just to speak to the previous question as well. So we're not changing the ministerial process, and the size restrictions in place in the existing government code section 66323 would still be in place and applied to both detached ADUs. And that is an 800 square foot limit.

That is an accessory dwelling unit in a separate part of the code, which we won't be touching. It's in Section 66314.

Thank you for your question. I think we have two issues here. We have increased density and we have parking. On the parking piece, especially in HOA communities, HOA communities have the power to require permit parking, and many of them do not issue street parking permits to homeowners who have converted their garages into ADUs. So there is the power to manage street parking at the local level. Second of all, if your ADU is further than half a mile from public transit, then local governments may require the construction of one parking space off street per ADU. On the density piece I would say that keeping single homes as single homes does not prevent them from becoming overcrowded California has some of the worst household overcrowding in the country and overcrowding and density are not the same thing When I was in my early 20s, I lived in a single-family home with six roommates and seven cars. We parked on the street. There was no ADU. Allowing ADUs to have more physical flexibility, and especially by allowing people to skip converting their garage into an ADU and instead build a second unit as a detached unit in the backyard, which will preserve their off-street parking, reduces overcrowding while likely maintaining the same overall level of density in the neighborhood. So I hear your concerns, but I think that we need to separate out the issues of overcrowded street parking, housing, and the density of actual dwelling units in the neighborhood.

To the senators that are opposed, I understand. I understand the concern of parking or overcrowding or, as you even mentioned, all the things that go with another residence on one side, mailboxes and infrastructure. and they are concerns. We know that neighborhoods have changed and are going to continue to change in the future. This bill is an attempt to clarify what can be put on a property. There have been amendments taken and there will continue to be work towards understanding and trying to make sure that we work with neighborhoods League of City and others to to address concerns but right now neighborhoods are changing this has been one of the few glimmers if you want to say and housing which is allowing homeowners to have flexibility with their property and when we think about that I know sometimes people say well they're building yoga students or art studios the vast majority of these ad use are the house many times seniors we used to call them granny flats and many times they were built without permits because there was so much happening at the city level that people just they even called them lean-ons I think at one point so times are changing and this bill is to offer flexibility and to clarify. With that I respectfully ask for your

Of course, we want to thank the committee staff for their very, very step-by-step conversations with us. We are accepting many, many amendments today. I have a long list, but I'm not going to read it out unless you would like me to read all the amendments. But we accept all of them. Yes, we will accept all the amendments. These amendments strengthen the bill's focus on genuine missing middle production while preserving the ministerial pathway that is the heart of AB 1751. The bill itself builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable pathways to home ownership, townhomes. Home ownership is moving farther out of reach for too many Californians. As you all know, we've had this conversation many times. A family now needs an annual income of roughly to purchase their first home these numbers reflect a market that is pushing tradespeople nurses teachers firefighters and young adult young adults out of stability out of their communities and even in some cases out of our state this is a structural failure that is pricing out the people who keep our communities running 80 1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards it also allows local inclusionary housing ordinance to apply for projects with more than 11 units the bill protects environmentally sensitive sites from being built consistent with existing laws on starter homes and built townhomes would be no higher than three stories of occupile occupiable living space if we are serious about addressing affordability we need to create more pathways into home ownership this bill delivers one with me to to to testify today in support is Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition who are the sponsors and Michael Gunning on behalf of Habitat for Humanity go ahead if you want to get started and you each have two minutes thank you madam chair good

Madam Chair, members, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. We still want to express our opposition to the removal of the minimum wage increase to the lowest paid, most exploited workers. We are in strong support because it is the housing crisis. We are not neutral on the basis of that activity. We still think it's needed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. First, I'd like to thank your office for working with us on this bill, and I do accept the committee amendments. I'm pleased to present AB 912, a bill that proposes amendments to the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District's Enabling Act to modernize the composition of the district's board of trustees and improve governance efficiency, responsiveness, and operational effectiveness. EB 912 modifies the board's composition to reduce governance conflicts, improve fiduciary independence, and ensures the district can continue to effectively manage long-term infrastructure and service responsibilities. The district's current governance structure presents practical and legal challenges because city council members constitute a majority of the district board. In situations involving negotiations, litigations, or other conflicts between the district and the city, recusal from one governing role does not fully resolve governance conflicts and often creates quorum issues. the conflicts and quorum issues consistently hold up negotiations on contracts which further delays projects and necessary agreements for the basic functionality of the district our bill seeks to address these issues by returning the district to a modified governance structure consisting of two Vallejo City Council members one Solano County Board of Supervisors and two at at-large trustees appointed by the remaining trustees. With that, I would like to introduce my witness, Mark Tomko General Manager of Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Thank you Madam Chair Good morning you have two minutes thank you thank you madam chair and senators I am mark Tomko I the general manager of Vallejo flood and wastewater district

please come I good morning madam chair members Karen Lang on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors and support thank you good morning madam chair members of the committee Paul Gonzales on behalf of the city of Vallejo and support just like to say thank you to the committee staff for all their hard work on this bill we really appreciate it thank you thank you anyone else in support seeing none anyone in opposition to a B 912 nobody anybody in opposition seeing none questions or comments the bill has been moved you may

just for all that getting everybody on the same page thank you bill has been motion has been made the motion is do pass to the committee on appropriation centers Durazo aye there's oh I Choi Choi I have a in Ashby Cervantes Laird say our toe say our two I three zero The bill is on call. We'll go on to file item number seven, Assemblymember Carrillo.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm actually going to step in here for a moment with Nick, but there will be just two of us, but Steve Cruz correct on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. And thank you to the assembly member for offering this important bill for CBIA. And I know we're going to accept amendments today, as the author indicated, to narrow the focus of the bill to Section 2. And I just want to make a few comments on that. That is still an important part of the bill that would make adjustment to the reasonable person standard and ensure that public agencies, when they're assessing projects for consistency, that there are objective standards that they may comply with. And so we're grateful that we are able to move forward with those provisions intact and would ask for an aye vote.

Just here for questions if you have them. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1710 please come forward. Madam Chair, Michael Gunning here on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulate Planning and Policy all in support of AB 1710.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Jordan Penana Carvajar on behalf of California YIMBY in support. you so much thank you madam chair Bob Naylor for a field said and company in support thank you good morning Henry Rhine and on behalf of lieutenant governor at Lenny could lock us in sport thank you Harrison lender on behalf of leading-age California here in support thank you see no more in support anyone here in opposition to AB 1710? In opposition? Thank You chair and members. Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. We had an opposing list amended. Looking forward to seeing these amendments in print and reevaluating and want to express our gratitude to the committee, the author, and all the stakeholders for engaging with us all of these months thank you thank you good morning Kylie Wright with the Association of California water agencies also want to appreciate the author and the committee work on this bill and the amendments that were taken today I looking forward to reviewing the bill in print and reconsidering Thank you Thank you Hi good morning Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association. We are respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you very much. Nobody else come to the dais. Any comments or questions? Questions, Senator Seriato? Thank you. So the opponents of the bill right now are asking for the amendments. Are the amendments that are pending, do those address their concerns, or is there more work to be done?

Okay. All right. Very good. I'll move the bill. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, the bill has been moved. Oh, close it.

You're welcome. The motion is due. Passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arrigin? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Cierreto? Aye. Cierreto, aye. 4-0. The bill is on call. Thank you very much. Anyone here? Okay. Need a motion for the consent calendar? The bill has been moved by Senator Cervantes. The motion for the consent calendar. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar which consists of file item number 6, AB 1622, file item number 12, AB 1802, file item 14, AB 2219, file item 15, AB 2390, file item 24, AB 2512, file item 27, AB 2341. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Regine? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Cierreto? Aye. Cierreto, aye. 4-0. On call. We don't have anyone. We're going back to AB 306, and I need a motion for that, please. The bill has been moved by Senator Cervantes. Call the roll. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Zarazo? Aye. Zarazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arreguin? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Cervantes, aye. We're waiting. Thank you We have Assemblymember Johnson

Welcome. and assembly member we're going to hear about a B 2080 go ahead and make your

tax collectors. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning Madam Chair and members thank you so much for hearing the bill and thank you so much to the author for taking it on. As she outlined to you this is really a technical change where the delegation will occur and then when a board of supervisors feels as though maybe something's not quite right they can have a hearing and potentially redesignate the authority to themselves but doing so will provide all of the stakeholders in the county Treasury an opportunity to participate while we hold a lot of money for ourselves in County Treasuries we also have the special districts money and a lot of local schools dollars and those folks are also stakeholders in the management of the County Treasury and occasionally when a board or a tax collector might not get it on the agenda in time before the end of the year technically that responsibility falls back to the Board of supervisors and nobody wants to be out of compliance so this actually tightens that up but also gives the public an opportunity to participate in any revocation of an investment authority all of these changes were made in the 90s after the Orange County bankruptcy I see we have two members on the committee that represent Orange County we're not doing anything to dilute or diminish the reporting that must be done on a monthly and quarterly basis as far as where the money is and how it's performing so we're not doing anything from a public access standpoint we would never come here and ask Jonathan to analyze the bill that would do that he's been wonderful to work with your staff has been fabulous working on another bill related to investments and we are I'm very mindful of the committee's dedication to making sure that money is managed appropriately and we ask for your aye vote and again thank the author for taking it on thank you anyone else in support of AB 2080 please come forward okay seeing none do you have anybody in opposition to AB 2080 in opposition Seeing none we have questions or comments at the dais Members, move the bill. All right, bill has been moved. Would you like to wrap up?

Thank you very much. Go ahead. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. Senator Sturrazo? Aye. Sturrazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arrigin. Ashby. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Laird. Sayarto. Sayarto, aye. 4-0. The bill is on call. Thank you very much. And as soon as we get more of our members, we'll take up the vote. Assemblymember Zabrur,

AB 1740. Does it matter?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning. Sylvia Solis-Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica. Our coastline is central to our community's identity, economy, and quality of life. Many of you are familiar with visions of the pier and just our very, very vast coastline and beaches. For decades, Santa Monica has been a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability, and public coastal access, and we remain firmly committed to those goals. The city sponsored AB 1740 to address longstanding permitting challenges in urban coastal communities while also preserving strong environmental protections and public access. We are very appreciative of the collaboration among Assembly Members of Bird, the Coastal Commission, our co-sponsors and other stakeholders for getting this bill to a consensus-based framework that creates a clear path toward certification of the City local coastal program Without the LCP the City has faced permitting delays that can hinder projects that improve mobility public access sustainability and economic vitality. Goals that are not only local but statewide goals as well. AB 1740 establishes timelines and accountability measures that will help the city complete its LCP while preserving the Commission's oversight, authority, and strong coastal protections. We ask for your support of this bill.

John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support

Shanta Pakin with the California Downtown Association in support Okay, any lead opposition group Anyone in the audience Okay, I would like to ask our members any questions. Okay motion has been made by I have a simple question.

While this plan is being developed, is the city of Zarmanica coordinating with the commission for that, that they once that application has been submitted, it will go smoothly according to the timelines?

Thank you to the assembly member and to leadership in the city. We are working collaboratively with the commission so that we stay on track. Okay. With the motion made, Senator, would you like to close the...

Okay, motion has been made. Please call the rolls. The motion is to pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Durazo? Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Aregine? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Seattle? Aye. Seattle, aye. Three-zero. On call. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Okay. You have another bill while you are here, bill number AB 2181. When you're ready, you can go ahead. Thank you. Nice to see you.

Good morning. Honorable Acting Chair Choi and members, Laura Strand representing Unite Here Local 11 on behalf of more than 32,000 hospitality workers across Southern California and Arizona. We are proud to co-sponsor with Unite Here International AB 2181 Zibir and respectfully urge your support for this bill. This bill is about preserving commercial uses of property that are critical of California's economy. Hotels and other hospitality businesses provide thousands of good-paying jobs, union jobs. They generate significant economic activity, and they help sustain California's vibrant visitor economy. This bill seeks to close a loophole that can put these businesses and jobs at risk. Fundamentally, AB 2181 is in alignment with two other Unite Here Local 11 and Unite Here International Union co-sponsors bills from last year, SB 838 Durazo and SB 92 Blake Spear, which went through and were both signed by the governor in 2025. These bills are principally about making sure that housing laws are being used for housing purposes, not just for the creation of good housing, which of course we deeply support, but also because the clarity of rules ensures no gamesmanship and a clear playing field. We thank Assemblymember Zabur for his leadership on this issue, and we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2181. Thank you. The second person. Good morning members of the committee. My name is Maria Spinoza and I have worked for 22 years as a employee of a hotel in Santa Monica, California. And I am a proud member of the United Hair Local 11. Every day I lay and lay the sábanas of the rooms. This ensures that the guests have a good experience. It's a hard work, but it's the one that keeps our hotels in functioning. But with too often, the people who do that work, the cleanliness, the camarader, the reception, we do not have a vote or vote on the decisions that affect our jobs and our places of work. That is why this law is important. The law AB 2181 seeks to guarantee that the hotel industry benefits not only to the investors, but to the workers that keep the work day-to-day. It is about equity, respect and ensuring that decisions are not taken to the expense of the people who work directly in the sector. For workers like me, the stability is important, the justice is important, knowing that our jobs are protected and that our work is valued. That is important. This law project helps us to advance in that direction. It recognizes that the workers in the hostelry sector are essential for the economy of California and deserve to be treated as such. I'm proud of the work I do and I just want to know that the system in which we work also supports us. I ask respectfully your support for the law of law 2181. Thank you very much. Good morning. I'll be translating for the witness. My name is Maria Spinoza and I work as a hotel housekeeper at a hotel in Santa Monica, California for over 22 years. I am a proud member of Unite Here Local 11. Every day I clean rooms, turn over beds, and make sure guests have a good experience. It's hard work, and it's work that keeps our hotels running. But too often the people who do this work, the housekeepers, the servers, the front desk staff, don't have a real voice in the decisions that affect our jobs and our workplace. That's why this bill matters. AB 2181 is about making sure that the hospitality industry works not just for owners and investors but also for the workers who keep it going every day It about fairness respect and making sure that when decisions are made they don come at the expense of the people on the ground For workers like me, stability matters. Fair treatment matters. Knowing that our jobs are protected and that our work is valued, that matters. This bill helps move us in that direction. It recognizes that hospitality workers are essential to California's economy and deserve to be treated that way. I'm proud of the work that I do. I just want to know that the system we work in supports us, too. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2181. Thank you. In support of this bill, your name and position. Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Andrea Herrera. Soy empleada de limpieza del hotel en Santa Monica, California, y soy miembro orgulloso de United Hell Local 11. Apoyo la ley AB 2181. Gracias. Good morning. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in support. Okay. Any lead opposition witness? Any me too opposition in the audience? No. Then questions from the members? Okay, motion has been made. Okay, no other question. Then you can close your statement.

Okay, motion has been made. Please call the roll. The motion is due. Pass to the Senate floor. Senator Sturrazo? Aye. Sturrazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arrigin? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Sayurto? Sayurto, aye. 4-0. Thank you. Thank you. The bill will remain on call. Okay, who's next? He ran out. Wait, wait, let me just... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. Z-bur, z-bur. We didn't do Lee. No, we left. 22, 24, 16, happen. Where is he? It's not until the second page. Oh. So put the members first. Okay. Member Papin, you're next. This is AB 2469. I have two before you this morning. 2469 and 2619. You got it. Okay.

Welcome. Good morning. And I just want to remind you of two minutes each. Two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Eric Massinet, and I have conducted research on the sustainability of data centers for two decades. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. As I mentioned in my testimony for the original bill the rapid expansion of data centers can pose risks to local water supplies especially in times of drought But with intelligent planning to reduce those risks our state can achieve its economic and digital leadership goals while simultaneously protecting the state water resources But such planning will require some basic data, particularly the quantities of water that will be required at specific locations so that local stakeholders can make informed decisions, the expected peaks in water demand that can occur so that proactive measures can be taken to avoid supply stress and basic information on the cooling strategies at specific sites that will lock in water use for years to come. I'd like to point out that such data not only help us better plan for the data centers being built today, they will also drastically improve the state's ability to make forecasts that are critical for identifying strategies that balance water stewardship and economic growth in the future. So why not rely on voluntary disclosures? While all companies have the needed data in hand, only a tiny fraction has actually shared them voluntarily. In fact, only Google and Meta report the water use of individual U.S. data centers, and only after those data centers have been built and are operating, which is when water use has already been locked in. Therefore, expected water use remains a major blind spot for planners. In my view, disclosing expected water use poses no major confidentiality risks. Companies routinely tout the water efficiency and advanced cooling capabilities they have. Upfront assessments would merely ask them to back those claims with transparent data like we would for any other sector. In sum, requiring upfront assessment seems like common sense is a must for sensible planning and is most certainly in the best interests of California citizens. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Morning, Chair, committee members. Sean Bothwell, I'm the Executive Director for California Coast Keeper Alliance. We really see this bill as a transparency bill to protect rate payers. Our community's water supply portfolios are already built out and are constrained statewide. We're already looking for where can we get more water, and yet these data centers are coming in and putting new pressures on our communities. And these communities should know before the data centers are built what type of pressure that is. Now, some of these data centers are using non-portable water, recycled water. That's all great, but that water has already been spoken for. We have already set policies in this state to recycle all of our wastewater that's feasible to be recycled. We need to do that because of climate change. The governor has made proclamations. The water board has set goals. That water has spoken for. And so when we have new demands on the system, those communities should know about those demands and be transparent about it before going in to building these centers. The bill also requires these data centers to be responsible for any new infrastructure that's required because of their strain on the system. And that's important because without that, these data centers can just walk away and leave the rate payers on the hook for those stranded assets, which is not fair to the rate payers. And then lastly, the definition of CII, we need to look at CII facilities different than we do other CII, or we need to view data centers differently than other CII customers because data centers use water consumptively, meaning when they use it, it goes away. It doesn't go back in the system. It's not able to be recycled. It doesn't go downriver to the next community. It's gone. And so we need to look at those facilities differently than we do other CII classes. With that, I'll ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much anyone here in support of a B 2469 Good morning Kyle Jones on behalf of the community Alliance with Family Farmers, Resources Renewal Institute, California Water Impact Network, and Restore the Delta in support. Thank you. Thank you. Remy Vilaques with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Ashley Walker with Nassim and on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. Thank you. Marissa Hagerman with Troughton Price Consulting, registering support for California Environmental Voters. Thank you. Gabriella Fascio with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. I just want to check, Assemblymember, if you accepted the amendments.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay. Anyone here in opposition to AB 2469? Please come forward. Thank you. Good morning. and you have two minutes each great thank you madam chair and members Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce local sir yes California Chamber of Commerce respectfully in opposition I'll note if there are committee amendments we we haven't seen them so you know we'll basing my comments off of the bill in print you know I want to first start off by discussing the bills mandate that data center operators pay the quote unquote full costs of infrastructure necessary to service their facility as the committee analysis noted water agencies assess connection fees and capacity charges whenever a facility is connecting to a water system and that those fees reflect the proportional cost of the infrastructure necessary to service the facility and those fees can also be used to purchase additional water supplies if necessary the Constitution and the mitigation fee act again mandate that these costs are proportional I'll also note that the mitigation fee act details the formula agencies must use in assessing costs provides a public process for adopting these fees mandate separate accounting and spells out an appeals process if these fees are to be challenged this provision doesn't do any of that there's nothing about this provision that's particularly useful to a water agency at best this provision is redundant of existing law and therefore unnecessary and at worst it's creating a new and unconstitutional standard you know I'll also note that it gives DWR a role in assessing determining these fees DWR plays no role in assessing the fees of local water agencies so it's very unclear why this why they would be given a role here you know the other thing I'll note is that the proponents describe this as an information-seeking bill ensuring that these facilities have sufficient water supplies before being permitted between water supply assessments connection fees and capacity charges urban water management plans existing law already requires supply demand assessments both for individual projects and based on long-term planning projections so it is unclear exactly what gap this is this bill is filling so for these reasons and more we respectfully ask for your no vote thank you go ahead good morning chair and And members, my name is Ashanti Smith on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and respectful opposition to AB 2469. We appreciate the committee's focus on water stewardship and thoughtful planning for California's growth of data center infrastructure. And this is an important conversation that we want to be constructive on. Data centers are critical infrastructure. They support the health systems, university systems, medical research, financial services, emergency government operations artificial intelligence and the broader digital economy that Californians rely on daily Unfortunately as amended AB 2469 builds a separate regulatory framework around a single industry without giving a state comprehensive picture of statewide water demand or how that demand should be managed across large water users. We have three primary concerns with this bill. First, this is a permitting bill, not a disclosure bill. The amended version bars, and when I say amended version we haven't seen the most recent amendment so I'm talking about the bill in print bars a city from or county from approving a data center through discretionary or ministerial permit unless the applicant satisfies a list of preconditions a water scarcity plan and water supply assessment and a water use assessment because it reaches ministerial approvals it overrides even by right projects that today move forward without discretionary review that is assigning an approval mandate and not transparency. Second, it ignores the real operational tradeoffs in modern data center design. Water use, energy efficiency, cooling technologies are all balanced against one another and against local grid and climate conditions. A facility that reduces water use often increases energy use and vice versa. On top of that, the amended bill forces an applicant to assume the full cost of conveyance, treatment storage or distribution upgrades as determined by DWR or the water supplier with no cap or no cost sharing framework creating an open-ended and unpredictable liability and third it creates an unavoidable risk to privacy security competitiveness and California's digital infrastructure detailed facility level water siting and workforce information can expose competitively sensitive sensitive and security relevant details about where and how critical infrastructure operates and the added cost and approval uncertainty will push investment to other states that are actively courting it. SVLG supports transparency, innovation and responsible resource management. California can advance smart water policy and continuing work on infrastructure and for those reasons we respectfully urge your NOVA. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2469? Good morning Tracy Ryan at the Royal County representatives of California we have an opposed and less amended position on the bill we look forward to reviewing the amendments as outlined in the committee analysis thank you good morning Charles Delgado California State Association of counties opposed and less amended on the current version of the bill we look forward to seeing the amendments put forward by the committee and I'd also like to thank the author and their staff for working with us on this we look forward to continuing the conversation thank you Lila Romero on behalf of the League of California cities and we are opposed unless amended but we look forward to reviewing the committee amendments when it comes into print thank you good morning Timothy bird jr. on behalf of tech net and the data center coalition in opposition thank you thank you okay seeing no more no more witnesses in opposition. I'll bring it to the dais. Questions or comments? Senator Choi? Thank you, Chair. I have a number of technical questions. Whoever has knowledge about that

Senator Choi, who are you addressing the question?

If I may refer to one of my witnesses.

So there are technologies out there that can reuse the water. It's just a question of whether the data center is using it or not. And I think we're actually going to get to that in the second bill because there are advances. We're looking at setting best practices. Those have not been set in California yet. And so some data centers, the majority that I know, use the water once. And it's not necessarily about water quality. It's more that it just dissipates. So like a power plant, when you run the water through, it evaporates out into the atmosphere. It's not that it's necessarily contaminated. Now, these technologies, and I'm not an expert on all the technologies, but I have a fairly decent background on like once through cooling and some of the technologies alternatives to that. So there are dry and wet cooling systems that reuse the water. And my understanding is, particularly for the wet cooling systems, you use them, you keep reusing it, and as it condenses, whatever the water quality was just gets more acute. And so you do need to retreat the water after so many uses. So there is a water quality piece for those alternative technologies. It's more of a question of whether they're using the technologies in the first place. And again, that's what I think the second bill is going to speak towards. But our issue is the ones that are consumptive where it just evaporates into the air.

That's my understanding, yes. So what we understand is that many of them can recycle for several cycles, but round about the seventh cycle, the water is gone. So that's why they're what we call an ultimate consumptive user. and so it is very important to know at the outset what sorts of processes the cooling the water passing through the system just because of the intensive heat I believe it evaporates rather than passing through

I'm sorry.

And then you can go back to. I just want to briefly speak to some of the members that SVLG has that are data center operators and builders here in the state of California are constantly in an innovation cycle where they are making their servers more efficient, where they are able to run at higher temperatures without needing cooling systems. So for most of the time, you're talking about servers who are not needing that additional water that is like pumped over to cool them because they're being able to operate at higher temperatures. and then they are cooled off rather quickly to go under that ambient temperature of roughly around 85 degrees Fahrenheit. So not only are they continuing to use less water because they're making more efficient cooling systems, but they're also making more efficient servers that are able to run at higher temperatures rather than like constantly cooling. So you have the recyclable nature of the water that is actually being used in these facilities. and then there is quite a bit of innovation in the technology themselves that allow them to use less water. And that was a part of a report that quite a few of our facilities had put out recently. So I just want to add that.

Yeah, I have one following question.

I'll try to be very brief. So I think the best way to think about water use in a data center is to recognize that there are generally two loops. The first loop, if water is used to cool the servers, is a closed loop. The water just recycles. That's what removes heat from the servers. It doesn't evaporate. It gets warm. And then that heat has to be rejected from the building. That's where evaporation comes in. That second loop, which is also water-based often and running through cooling towers, will evaporate some of that water into the atmosphere to take the heat with it. When that happens, as Sean mentioned, the minerals, some of the treatment chemicals in the remaining water get concentrated. So you do have water discharge from evaporative cooling systems at data centers. And by and large, that goes into the wastewater treatment system.

Well, it's the same sort of discharge one would have at an office building or a warehouse that's using cooling towers. It's pretty standard. We've been using these technologies for many, many years.

It's possible to treat the water and recycle it on site, or it's possible to discharge it as long as it doesn't.

It could be, but you can also discharge water that is within the limits of the wastewater treatment system. So there are many different options that data centers have. I just wanted to clarify on the nature of the water use itself and the discharges.

I think the point that we're trying to make is there are multitudes of systems that different users, and data centers employ, and the purpose of this bill is to make sure that localities can be prepared to provide enough water so that these data centers can succeed, whichever technology they might be using.

So actually it is quite the opposite. The localities will determine whether or not to permit. All this bill does is say you must, you the applicant, the data center developer, must provide the information so that a permit can be issued. We are agnostic about what will work for a particular water supplier. They'll have to determine for themselves. You know, in the state of California, we have something like 3,500 different water suppliers. This is a very local issue. Water comes rather locally, so the locals are in the best position to determine whether or not they will be able to accommodate a heavy water user like a data center. All this bill says is prior to permitting, get that information. Help us help you, because if you run out of water, we'll all not survive. So let's make it so that we know exactly localities, know exactly what's coming into their community, so that they can make an informed decision about how they permit a data center. We are not mandating what localities should decide.

Okay. Any more questions, comments? Okay. Seeing none, I will be supporting your bill today. I think the issue of information, I know there's a lot of issues, multiple issues in this bill, but the issue of information for the local areas is really important. I have a similar bill to provide water supply assessments, and I think it's something that everyone needs to know to have it. Someone used the term blind spot for planners. this should not be a blind spot for planners. Madam Pavin, you may wrap up.

Thank you We have a motion made by Senator Cervantes The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriation Senator DeRozco Aye DeRozco aye Choi No Choi, no. Arrigin? Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Lair? Sayarto? 2-1. Bill's on call.

Thank you so much. Do we have another one? She's about another one, too. She's passed her second year. Okay, and we'll go on. Assemblymember AB 2619.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

to speak. As I mentioned in my testimony for the original bill, better data on the drivers and quantities of data center water use will enable much better planning, much better forecast to balance economic and water goals, much less confusion and more evidence-based dialogues between all stakeholders, and the identification of best practices for water efficiency that can be incentivized and rewarded. In short, everyone benefits from better data, but as I mentioned earlier, voluntary reporting has fallen short. Let me share with you some numbers that are based on 20 years of voluntary data compiled by my lab. First, the positive news. Of the 80 or so major global operators we track, around two-thirds report some sort of water data, and the numbers of reporters has been increasing over time. Now, the not-so-positive news. Reported types are not at all consistent. Some report withdrawals, some report consumption, and some use only vague terms like total water. Reporting levels are also not consistent. Around two-thirds of reporters disclose only corporate-wide water use rather than the water use of data centers themselves. When data center water use is reported, it's overwhelmingly at the global or regional levels rather than for specific sites like those here in California. Very few of the companies we track disclose their cooling technologies, which gives us a sense of water lock-in. And finally, what they report can change by year, even from the same company. The situation leaves analysts, planners, and stakeholders trying to make local decisions with a patchwork of incomplete, incompatible, and unreliable data. But we don't have to settle for this in California, where practically every other major sector is assessed using collected data. All operators already have the data in hand, and many are already reporting these data to governments abroad, so we know that it can be done. Lastly, I'm skeptical that disclosing water use would reveal proprietary secrets. My lab has tried for years to reverse engineer reported data, trust me, and it can't be done with reasonable scientific confidence. Companies already tout their water efficiency goals and advanced cooling capabilities so better reporting would allow them to both back these claims with data and get credit where credit is due Thank you for your time I be happy to answer any questions Thank you Go ahead Again, Sean Bothwell, California Coast Keeper Alliance.

of AB 2619 please come forward good morning Rami Verlakis of the Planning

Water District in support thank you anyone else in support seeing none anyone

welcome you have two minutes each. Timothy Burr Jr. representing the Data Center Coalition. We're here today in respectful opposition to AB 2619. We We appreciate the author's engagement and the recent amendments that came out of Senate Natural Resources Committee. The data center coalition continues to review the latest with our members and we will continue to engage with the author. While we share this committee's commitment to responsible water use, we believe this bill imposes disparate standards that threaten the security, competitiveness, and innovation of the infrastructure supporting our digital economy. Data centers depend on reliable water and energy resources and we share California's commitment to sustainability data center cooling is not one-size-fits-all it requires a delicate balancing act generally cooling systems operate on an inverse relationship systems that use less water then will require more energy data center coalition supports reporting requirements that align with five key benchmarks that we'd like to discuss parity standards should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users to provide context and a holistic view of water demands confidentiality provide clear public records protections for individual companies specific of sites and end users to maintain operational security meaningful metrics any reporting should target actual water consumption rather than mere withdrawals or projections anonymity ensure that any publicly available data is aggregated and anonymized and then tech neutral encourage best practices that are reflective of all technical technically feasible options and allow for the development and deployment of innovative solutions We will continue to work with the author office as I mentioned in an effort to strike a balance through these principles particularly as new technologies continue to create new efficiency for data center water use. We believe water policy should focus on the actual water consumption and local water conditions, not the specific type of business that occupies that building. Thank you all for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses out there? Yep.

Okay. Seeing none. I see no other members but me. Let me ask another question. Earlier bill required cities and the counties to assess the water supply issues, whether that will be sufficient or not, and then they will go by that. All this required, this bill is related, but the separate bill. And this is an annual report including two all the specified items in there. I wonder if the application is thorough enough for this questions can be answered in the application process. That's the question to the author.

You're right.

I understand there were amendments proposed to you. Do you accept the amendments?

Any other additional answer? No. Okay. Then we'll have to wait until members come back to take a motion and take a vote on that. Okay, I understand you have another bill? Oh, I would just like to close on this

Thank you. I see your another bill has been pulled so you're good to go. You're done with me. Thank you, sir. Thank you. What's next? Ten? Okay. next bill is a final item number 10 AB 1801 assembly member Lee is here all right when you ready you can begin all right thank you I here today to present AB 1801 which will strengthen the public engagement process for

Okay. I think it's on. I think it's on. All right. Awesome. Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any... I think we have a... Yes, so...

Any Me Too supporters? Anai Matias Santiago with Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of Central American Resource Center. Carecen in support, thank you. Zine Gaya with ACLU CalAction in support. CHLOE ROCIO WITH THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER IN SUPPORT. OKAY. ANY OTHER? NO LEAD OPPOSITION WITNESS? ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC OPPOSING? OKAY. I HAVE I have some questions. I see your bill is expanding, so to speak, in general, sounds good, the transparency of certain project, but this one, this bill is specifically addressing the immigration detention facilities, not any other hearings that the local government requires for any new facilities or any projects they are required to, they are planning and they are required to post hearing notices and the number of times and geographic area, how far they have to notify the residents within the project certain distance that they have to notify for the hearings So but this one is expanding that the requirement many by many different ways So transparency is good, but why this is to the author focusing not all the projects, detention center only. That's singling out sounds like to me it's to discouraging local governments to build. When we do that, obviously federal government has their own issues of necessity building additional local detention centers. But if local government requires so many regulations and deter them from building necessary detention centers, then where obviously the lack of detention centers is not going to prevent the federal government of what they are doing, and obviously they are proposing additional detention centers to be built in certain areas, than if we try to block that kind of additional facilities. To me, that's not really beneficial for the detainees in the facilities because they will be sent from proposed location to another existing location and that will create overcrowding. Sanitary issues in the narrow space, so many people will be crowded. And as you mentioned, their medical care attention will be more problematic. So it is not necessarily beneficial. First of all, it's not going to block the federal government from building no matter how this bill will try to deter that kind of additional buildings. But secondly, to me, I'm worried about the services or welfare of the detainees from the shortage of facilities. Do you have any thoughts? Have you thought about this kind of problems instead of just simply blocking them?

Thank you so much, Assemblymember. I think if I can only add to what Assemblymember Lee has focused. Honestly, the spirit and the point of ABA 201 truly is not about mandating what localities do. It's just allowing constituents to know when detention centers are potentially being built in their backyard. So through AB 821, just like a member Lee mentioned, we are just building on existing law that really puts the guardrails that if a locality is to approve it, fine, but at least we believe that is for good governance that the city should do its due diligence to make sure locals know that this potential project is to be built in their city or backyard. I mean, my belief is that no commercial venture or developer will build voluntarily additional detention centers unless there was a demand or the request from the federal government that we need a facility such and such, can you build one. So that is not as like a future potential investment. No specific use of a detention facility will be added or developed by the commercial developers. So I don't quite necessarily agree with the author's statement. So welfare issue, in other words, overcrowding issue if a shortage of spaces where detainees can be accommodated. Okay? So no comment and is there any motion? Was there a question, Senator? Okay. Would you like to close or would you like to answer before closing?

Okay, my question was if necessary space, additional space is provided, then there will be existing detention centers will have to accommodate the additional detainees. and that will create an overcrowding situation that creates welfare problems in a more crowded area. So additional facility has been proposed, and that the proposal will be obviously based upon the demand from the federal government to the developer, not just any developer will voluntarily build detention center, will you lease the building from me, it will be vice versa. So if we, because of this intent of this bill is to deter or block the additional facilities, then the kind of overcrowding situation welfare of the detainee issue will rise have you thought about it that was my question I'm happy to I think for us the biggest thing going back to what I originally said is for us we truly lean into idea of a B to one is that we regardless of what locality decides to do if they decide to approve it a permit or not the least that we think a locality could do is inform their constituents about that and at the end of that AB 211 doesn't outlaw what we're trying to do with our particular bill is not outlaw the construction of potential detention centers But at least give community opportunity to know about it and know about it in advance and attend hearings to be able to voice their concerns Or even potentially their support for these detention centers Also would you like to close?

Okay, is that your closing statement?

Okay, is there any motion? No, not for me. Okay, until other members come back and the motion has been made, we'll leave it open. Okay, thank you. you have another bill same same person yes I have one more bill okay I have a number 11 AB 26 or 25 61 no what is it I cannot read 26 on one all right thank

Capital. Thank you Mr. Chair good morning Mr. Chair and members my name is Louis Morante with the Bay Area Council which represents about 400 of the region's largest employers for businesses in the Bay Area housing is not a side issue it's It's a critical core function of the business community's focus on making the region the best place to live and work and to recruiting future jobs or companies to the region. This bill is important because it helps build the missing middle, the affordable type of home ownership projects that our communities so eagerly crave. These smaller, more naturally affordable homes are ones that people can actually buy. builds very few homes that are actually for sale, and these homes are well-placed close to jobs in the peninsula, in San Francisco, in the East Bay, making them very valuable to employers seeking to recruit people who want to own homes. Critically, this bill, as the Assembly member mentioned, does not impose any new deadlines on local agencies. It's streamlined strategically without mandating a different pace of review. I think the assembly member covered the details of the bill very well, so I'll skip that I would just respectfully urge your aye vote and thank assembly member Lee for carrying this important measure. Thank you. Okay second witness Hello chair members of the committee My name is Jonathan Chang speaking on behalf of Alpha X RE Capital in support of AB 2601 Alpha X is a Bay Area real estate developer focus on infill and missing middle housing Our mission is directly tied to the type of housing production this bill is intended to support. Small lot subdivisions townhome and condo communities ADUs and other attainable ownership opportunities As an organization we pride ourselves on collaborating with local jurisdictions to put California newest housing legislation into practice We were one of the first SB 684 projects approved in the city of Campbell We are actively working on SB 1123 projects throughout Santa Clara County. And in San Jose, we were one of the first to complete a condo conversion of a detached ADU under AB 1033. That two-bedroom ADU was ultimately purchased by a mother and son for $530,000, granting them first-time home ownership with a mortgage almost equal to the rent they were previously paying. This is the kind of housing opportunity that Californians deserve more of. Allowing the condominium map and related housing review to move forward concurrently would make ADU ownership more viable, creating another path for attainable home ownership to a wider demographic across the state. We strongly support this bill because it strengthens practical implementation of important housing legislation, including SB 9. SB 9 created a pathway to add housing on single-family lots through two unit developments and urban lot splits, but in practice these projects still face challenges when the building application, subdivision map, and eventual ownership structure are reviewed separately. AB 2601 helps address that problem by making the process clearer and more coordinated while still preserving local authority. Jurisdictions would still apply their local standards, objective requirements, and safety reviews. Importantly, appropriate safeguards would still remain, such as the ability to condition occupancy on the recordation of a final map. From our experience working directly with cities and counties, clear sequencing and concurrent reviews benefits everyone involved. It helps applicants understand the requirements earlier, helps staff identify issues sooner, and gives the jurisdiction a clearer picture of the proposed housing outcome from the very start. With the improvements outlined in this bill, we believe California can create a more workable path for smaller housing projects, allowing developers like us to deliver the housing our communities need during our ongoing housing crisis. crisis. We respectfully request your Ivo on AB 2601. Thank you. Okay anyone also me to support us? Mr. Chair Michael Gunning Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and circulate planning and policy all in support. Nolan Grave California UMB in strong support. Thank you. Any lead opposition witness okay in the public okay no question and committee members yeah okay so we've gone through all the housing committees I'm seeing like 10 15 of bills that are very very similar to this all streamlining SB 9 how do we reconcile those with I mean have you looked at your bill in relation to other bills to see where the overlap is or what because you know we just heard one earlier that I'm I'm supportive of barely but I'm supportive of it because of the middle housing that needs to be addressed. But it just seems like the onerous parts of one bill get covered in another bill, and then when we combine them all at the end, we have an unworkable mess of regulatory stuff for cities to have to watch because they apparently cannot participate in. So have you looked at these other bills and compared them to yours and see where the overlap is? Or we just I mean it just like reigning these type of bills And you know it like we making the same arguments over and over and over again yeah i think it a very it a very valid point you know and i sit on the assembly housing committee

And I think part of what you're trying to accomplish forgets it. Sometimes there's just one or two people doing the same process. And so the stream, they can't do things simultaneously because they have to do one thing at a time. It doesn't necessarily, they're not doing it in series because they want to. They're doing it in series because they have to, because they, yeah, they've only got one thing at a time. So I'm not quite sure that that streamlining, with all the other 50 streamlining bills that we've seen this year, is going to be necessary on top of all the other ones. That's all. Right, and I understand that, especially with smaller cities, the planning departments may be a bit smaller in that sense. But I think about it as the smaller planning department having to juggle 15, basically, projects for one parcel rather than doing it all comprehensively as one. So it is in a sense we're trying to simplify this process still well our state agencies all have a lot of Employees and they're not able to do this either. So I don't know how we're gonna make them do it. So thank you Okay, with that I will have to wait until members come back and the motion has been made and the libid open. Okay, thank you All right, thank you Okay, next one is item number 13, AB 1820, Assemblymember Sheavel.

Thanks. Bill McGavern with the Coalition for Clean Air, and we're supporting this bill because it will help to expedite a solution to our air and climate problems. California, unfortunately, despite all the progress we've made, still has the country's worst air pollution. We have the worst smog, the worst soot. We're also seeing the devastating effects of runaway climate change and wildfires and heat waves and droughts and floods. Fortunately, we have a solution to the biggest cause of that pollution, which is transportation. And we can electrify transportation. We have the vehicles available. Unfortunately, one of the biggest obstacles to transportation electrification is lack of charging infrastructure, and that's particularly acute in multifamily housing. So this bill would help to address one of the problems and make sure that fees are reasonable when we're permitting that charging infrastructure. Members, Nate Solove on behalf of the EV charging companies supporting the bill. Just for context, the legislature has adopted three bills over the last 15 years doing this same thing for the solar industry. That's led to more consistent permitting throughout the state and that's helped a lot with solar adoption we are adopting that same type of Reform here applying it to EV chargers, but we're doing it in a very narrow way as the Author mentioned and we again appreciate all of her work and the committee's hard work on this bill the amendments Extremely narrow the bill so it no longer applies to single-family homes and no longer applies to superchargers and charging facility settings It now just applies to multifamily housing level two chargers. So those are predominantly going to be in apartments. This is the sector that's hardest to get at. These are folks who have no opportunity to really consider purchasing an electric vehicle unless they have charging where they live. So to provide it in this apartment settings, that's going to be extremely important for those individuals. And we think this bill has a lot of flexibility. We delayed the implementation date coming out of the assembly. So there's a one-year delayed implementation for cities under 200,000 people to help give cities time to make any adjustments that they might need to. However, I will note that many cities are already charging below the price parameters set in the bill. And so many cities will not be impacted at all by this bill. But it does encourage those jurisdictions to move and have a more efficient permitting process, which will lead to lower fees. There also is exemptions and flexibility for local jurisdictions since every permit is different Potentially jurisdictions can charge more than the pricing parameters in the bill They just need to do a written finding And so there is an exemption for folks if they need to charge more that okay And then there's also flexibility in the fee schedule where if there's just a few chargers, it starts at a certain amount, but then as more chargers get installed at a location, for example, they're able to charge more for that project. So there is the ability for local jurisdictions to charge more. There's flexibility and exemptions, and so we think this strikes the right balance to really hone in on the most critical sector of folks out there trying to get chargers in apartment settings. So really appreciate the committee's continued support. Thank you. Thank you. Any other support statements from the public? Chair members, Nick Romo on behalf of the American EV Jobs Alliance and the Alliance for Automative Innovation in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members. Scott Cox on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, proud co-sponsor of this bill, respectfully requesting your aye vote, and also the request of the California Apartment Association extending their support for the bill. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I could just add, the Unit of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council weren't able to be here and asked us to add their support also. I'm Kyla Point here on behalf of Environment California in support. Okay. Any lead opponent? You have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We actually really appreciate the hard work that the committee staff has done on the analysis, as well as working with the sponsor and the author of the bill. I appreciate the narrowing of the bill and the provisions that focus this bill more hyper on level two multifamily housing. Our issue kind of remains kind of premised under the capping of any fees that local municipalities charge. California already has some of the strongest protections in the nation against excessive permit fees under Prop 26 and the mitigation fee act cities and permitting authorities can only recover reasonable costs providing permitting services these costs are founded on our planning review engineering working with different departments the staff time and that analysis and review all costs money and limiting our ability to recover those costs is like this bill could artificially suppress those cost recoveries and force us to pull resources from our general fund or other core programs and services so for those reasons we're opposed okay thank you any other in the from the public good morning Tracy Ryan the Royal County representatives of California would like to align our comments with the League of California cities in opposition thank you afternoon mark Newburger representing the California State Association counties also like to land our comments to those made by Cal cities and also register our opposition spill thank you good afternoon cure Ross on behalf of the city of Redwood City and the city of San Mateo in opposition thank you good afternoon mr. chair Karen Ling on behalf of the Solano County Board of supervisors and an opposing less amended position thank you good morning Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and respectful opposition Thank you Thank you With that I would like to ask the support witnesses or author can answer to the opposed major lead witness presented his views of why he was opposing Do you have an answer to that Sure, absolutely. So I completely understand where he's coming from. I think, you know, in some ways this is kind of a principled opposition on any bills like this. But we view this really as a soft cap, right? It's not a hard cap. You don't have to stay under a certain amount no matter what. Simply if you do findings showing that you have to go above that cap and you can justify it, then you can charge more.

Okay. Follow-up question is that when you mention as a soft cap, soft fee, do you mean that the discretion of the cities or counties they will set or this bill is setting the cap?

Okay, bill analysis says that existing law already limits permit fees to the reasonable cost of providing the service. What is the difference between your bill and the existing law?

Okay. Any other questions from the members? Okay Anyone who would like to make a motion? Would you like to close?

And thank you. Is there a motion? Okay, motion has been made by Senator Arrogan. Clerk, please call the roll. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Durazo, Choi. No. Choi, no. Arreguin. Arreguin, aye. Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Sayarto. Sayarto, no. One, two, on call. Okay, thank you. What's the next one? 27? 27? Oh, that bill number. 19 is easier. Okay. Next bill will be item number 19, AB 2074, Assemblymember Haney.

Okay, each person has two minutes. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Vince Segrew, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm before you today in strong support of AB 2074. California's housing crisis demands that we actually move projects forward, especially in our major downtown areas where housing can be built close to jobs, transit, and existing infrastructure. AB 2074 provides a practical framework to make that happen. This bill recognizes that zoning reform alone is not enough. A project can be allowed on paper and still never get built. Financing, delay, uncertainty, and upfront costs can all stop housing before a shovel ever hits the ground. AB 2074 addresses that by establishing a state-backed revolving loan fund through CalHFA to help provide the early-stage capital that large housing projects often need to move forward. For construction workers, the benefits are just as important. High-rise housing is complex work. It requires workers who understand safety, coordination, mechanical systems, ventilation, energy efficiency, and the many trades that must come together to deliver a durable building. AB 2074 helps create more opportunities for that work while maintaining strong labor standards. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good afternoon, Chair Durazo and members of the committee. My name is Phil Pluckibon. I'm the Sacramento City Council Member representing downtown, and I'm here today to speak in support of AB 2074. 2074 will support the development of more high-rise housing where we can really go big in addressing California's housing shortage, our biggest urban centers and downtowns. I'm very grateful for the leadership of Assemblymember Haney in this. Sacramento is one of these seven large transit-rich cities. They're required by the bill to establish a regional transit hub district where high-rise housing can be permitted and in some cases streamlined. We welcome that designation. Sacramento already is home to many major transit infrastructure, jobs, art, and culture. As the local representative for this area, I'm committed to ensuring it becomes a thriving, livable neighborhood for residents of all income levels. It's no secret that changing work and land use patterns have hit downtowns hard. However, we also know that bringing housing within walking distance of transit, business, and job opportunities is a great way to bring life back to our downtowns. I was also a big fan of the revolving loan fund included in this bill and a lot of other cities and local electeds were as well state constitutional construction loan funds allow allow home builders to leverage private capital magnifying its impact. They can help put millions of dollars private investment off the sidelines and putting it to productive use building housing and all income levels. And when the loans revolve back into the state fund that modest one time commitment from the legislature can unlock sustained supporting support for housing and growth and downtown revitalization. By permitting and streamlining more high-rise housing in our dense urban cores and taking a first step to our evolving loan fund and to close the financing gaps for high-rise projects, AB 2074 directly addresses the barriers that have long made vertical housing and development economically challenging, despite the desire and opportunity for it in our city. AB 2074 gives local governments in California biggest transit cities a new tool to address our housing shortage as well over revitalize our downtowns I respectfully ask for your aye vote of this bill but madam chair members Mike Monaghan to be up the state building trades in support thank you afternoon chair members Moira top here on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria San Diego is one of the cities listed in the bill and we appreciate that Nolan great for California NBA proud co-sponsor and strong support Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance and strong support thank you Ben Radestorf and baby Otto for house Sacramento Sacramento Yimby movement and downtown Sacramento residents in strong support thank you Bill McGavern coalition for clean air support thank you very much is there anyone in opposition to AB 2074? Well thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward. Oakland is one of the cities that would be covered by this bill. The City of Oakland is in support of the bill. I strongly support the bill. I think it's going to help build much needed housing in our downtowns which are struggling to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic. And I think what's also really special about this bill is it's bringing the building trades and YBB together. I think we've seen that in quite some time and I hope that's a partnership we can continue to sustain on other housing bills. I want to thank the author for working with the housing committee which heard this yesterday and recommended it on this bill. This does not include the revolving loan fund I support a revolving loan fund that's one of the reasons why we don't have opposition here because the amendment that we took in the housing committee removed opposition from some of the affordable housing groups who were concerned about money going towards market rate housing as opposed to subsidized housing but I do think the the fund has merit particularly help catalyze projects that have not been able to secure the need of financing to build much need of housing their downtowns and I hope the outcome of the study will result in some ideas for policies and budget investments that can help support these types of projects in the future happy to move the bill comments questions well I also want to thank you very much good working with you and good to have partner also in housing where you can match up and see what what are the pieces that still need to be worked out and so I'm really grateful to our housing chair as well so wrap yes thank you for that and thank Thank you for both both chairs for working with us. I agree that this bill will still do some some very important things in terms of what it will unlock for our downtowns. And at the same time, we continue to be excited about the possibilities of this revolving loan fund. But understand there is some some steps of consideration that are needed to make sure that we get that right. We do have to address not just the land use issues, but also some of the financing that I think is holding back housing where it's most needed, like in our downtowns. with that. We'll ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. We have a motion by Senator Araguin. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi. Arrigin. Aye. Arrigin, aye. Ashby. Cervantes. Laird. Sayurto. Aye. Sayurto, Aye. Three-two. Bill is on call Brian is not here Pellerin Member Hart

supervisor caps you very much welcome and you will have a couple of minutes

for it I vote thank you California has created a constitutional crisis in its jails when I was a young prosecutor we passed tough on crime laws without building new prisons overcrowding prisons and denying adequate care when the US Supreme Court ordered us to stop we played a shell game by shifting the issues to our jails. We told the public we had reformed our criminal justice system and hid what we were doing. I was hired as LA's first inspector general when a sheriff tried to prevent the FBI from in jail conditions. When I reported on mentally ill prisoners chained to benches for extensive periods, positional torture, the response was a collective shrug. Again, it took a court order to end the practice. Years later, change continues to happen in the courts, but only after significant time has passed and harm has occurred, rather than as a result of proactive local efforts. Judicial accountability is not a substitute for local governance. Since 1993, when sheriffs received sole and exclusive control over the jails, boards of supervisors have struggled with limited tools to exercise their statutory oversight responsibilities. In recent years, the legislature has empowered counties throughout California to hire inspectors general and establish sheriff oversight commissions to identify issues and make recommendations. Having served as the LA Inspector General, I can tell you that there is a gap between identifying jail issues and actually solving them. Now, the legislature has an opportunity to provide counties with a focused tool to incentivize accountability in the jail. When a board of supervisors has the authority to confirm or deny the sheriff's appointment of a jail administrator, the stakes are raised for the sheriff to work collaboratively with county government to improve jail conditions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this modest bill to improve jail accountability. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Senators, Corey Salzilla on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association here in opposition to AB 2257. Many, if not most, sheriffs already employ a chief deputy or assistant sheriff over corrections. The passage of this bill and the choice by a county board to exercise the authority it creates would put the sheriff in a position of having to take into account whether the board would confirm their choice to serve as jail administrator. This vital role should be filled by the person best suited to do the work, not the person who the sheriff thinks can win a popularity contest with three members of the board of supervisors. The word crisis was used at least twice in the presentation, and I just have to take a second to wonder how much of this so-called crisis is driven or created by counties being required to house former state inmates and all the lawsuits that emanate relative to their care. The bill's supporting materials indicate that this recently amended version of 2257, the policy direction this bill takes now, is intended to give leverage over the operation of the county jails to the Board of Supervisors. But in reality, it just imposes a labyrinth of rules of how a sheriff's choice for this position is selected, confirmed, overseen, and replaced. And given that only the sheriff can remove the jail administrator, any leverage that the board thinks it obtains by exercising the option that this bill would create effectively disappears as soon as they confirm that person. The notion that there a lack of oversight of the sheriff office or the jails is just flat wrong Sheriffs are elected and they subjected to specific yet broad oversight from entities including the state and federal courts the attorney general, civil grand jury, the board of state community corrections, not to mention the voters who elect the sheriff every four years. We don't think the legislature should politicize this important position within the sheriff's office, especially when there's no indication that the complicated governance change contemplated by this bill will lead to better outcomes in the jails. Boards don't control the elected office of the sheriff and confirming one jail administrator won't fix broader overtime or other budget issues. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to see Supervisor Capps, who was my boss 23 years ago. Things come full circle. But I'm strongly in support of this bill, and the Senate Public Safety Committee heard this bill and moved it out on a 5-1 vote. And I want to talk about how this issue of the management of jails impacts my county, Alameda County, about a decade ago there were serious issues in county jail including in custody deaths that were not properly reported and addressed and see a serious lack of mental health care which ultimately resulted in the county being under a federal consent decree and despite the Board of Supervisors efforts using its budget authority to try to get the sheriff to act we weren't able to achieve meaningful action and so there is it there is a challenge I mean the state law allows counties to independently elect the sheriff and the sheriff is responsible for the administration of the county jails the Board of Supervisors who's also elected and it's the policy and budget decision makers of the county have little impact in helping influence the decisions of the independently elected sheriff except for budget authority but it sounds like In this instance, that was not enough to effectuate the kind of meaningful change in Santa Barbara County. So there is this tension, and it does exist in counties throughout the state of California, and I do think that this bill is important. But I just want to call attention to the comment on page four of the analysis, which says that the committee may wish to consider whether to give counties back the authority to create a separate Department of Corrections outside of the sheriff's control if they're not satisfied with the direction of jail operations. Now, this bill does not go that far, but I think that's a really interesting idea that's worthy of future discussion. I want to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward. I think it's necessary, and I will move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you.

A lot of times we try to create a bigger crisis than we've always had. In this particular case, we're talking about mortality rates in 2000. The average mortality rate in jails was 151 deaths per 100,000 inmates. and the most recent one that they have is 174 deaths in 2023 which is pretty much in line with the rise in fentanyl deaths and things like that But there's other factors that play into this whole picture. When we shuttled a bunch of the state inmates into county prisons and overcrowded the county prisons, the sheriffs, the DAs, whoever the powers to be in each of these counties were left with decisions of just unloading their jails and releasing inmates. So we created the overcrowding conditions. And when you have overcrowding, you have more opportunities for deaths and inmate to inmate deaths. But most of those deaths, there's a few that were natural deaths, but there are a lot of them were attributed to drug and fentanyl overdoses. And those are issues of people smuggling drugs into their relatives. So that, you know, I don't know that another layer of a political person stuck into the middle of the mix is going to fix those problems. It may give some people comfort that there's somebody there to tell them, yeah, yeah, we have a bunch of fentanyl deaths. Because that's, you know, ultimately when the coroner figures out why somebody died in their sleep and find out, well, he actually did a fentanyl OD. there's no amount of supervision in the jails that's going to come in. We don't have one-on-one supervision of inmates. And so those deaths are going to continue to occur as long as people are smuggling drugs into their loved ones. And so, you know, I don't know that this is going to do a whole lot other than maybe give people the comfort that there's another political person stuck in the middle that is going to somehow alleviate something that's been going on for years and years and years and years. A rise from 151,174 given the conditions, because in 2000 we hadn't shuttled people yet. It doesn't seem like that's a super crisis, but like I said at the beginning, any person that dies in jail, that's a crisis to that family. and and should those answers be given to them yes but a lot of times people don't like the answers people get in jail for reason some of them because and the other part of this is dumping the mentally ill people into the jails like that's where their storage facility is that's not we need to we need to do better with that part of it so that we are not yeah I do not condone the chaining of people the beds and stuff at all. I can understand that somehow they wind up with the soft restraints and stuff on people that are trying to harm themselves. And nobody knows what the heck to do with it. They don't have a place to send them. We have to do better with that part. But I think there's any sheriff would be willing to and happy to work on that part. because they don't want the severely mentally ill people in their jails any more than we want them or their families want them there. But that's where they kind of wind up some of them. We have to fix that. I don think one person is going to fix that I think that a Board of Board of Supervisors State of California issue and our county and state and local government issue And working together we can figure out this. But if everybody's just going to point fingers and blame different agencies for problems that, you know, exist, but not at the crisis level that people are making it out to be, we're not going to solve it. We're just going to do these kind of things. So I'm not a big fan of the idea of inserting another layer of somebody because then you're going to need to insert somebody to keep an eye on that person to keep an eye on the next person because they won't trust that person's opinion any more than they trust the sheriff's opinion or the undersheriff's opinion. So I don't know where this leads. That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of work that we need to do, but we should be doing that. And we're kind of not. Everybody's kind of passing the buck on it. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I do just want to make a comment to the author. Thank you for trying to address an issue that we believe is a crisis. I do agree with your statement that our county jails are in crisis and the death rates are at a record high, including in my own county of Riverside, where we are trying to address this issue, but through another measure. We do need to improve our jail operations and management, and with that, I will be supporting the bill today.

I have a couple of questions to Ms. Capps. Welcome. Welcome here. I just want to ask what what makes you believe that this is worth trying, that this is this could actually make some change because it's not going to come overnight because there are some serious. I don't know about your jail, but in Los Angeles, serious problems. So what makes you think this is worthy of trying? Thank you, Madam Chair. And because we need to have, as county supervisors, we basically have the burden of the liability without any means to utilize the tools that the state has given us to make reforms. And so having an actual administrator, and with respect, I would say not a political person within the jail, but an actual someone to run the jail who has the experience of jail administration. and there are those people. Certainly there are those people that have the fiscal ability to run a jail and ability to have the expertise and the talent to understand how you do prevent the transmission of drugs into jails. There are a lot of ways in which you can prevent those. We need people. We have a lot of talented deputies that are very good at preventing crimes, but we need to improve the way we administer jails. And so the ability for the board to have that person in that role will just improve oversight, will improve fiscal responsibility to have a real administrator in a jail. Because these, as you well know, in Los Angeles, these are massive budgets. These are massive operations that need an administrator at the helm. And what holds you from doing that now? What is it about? The sheriff runs the jail. We have no... Zero ability to have any role in jail operations. But yet the public believes we do. They come to us week after week begging for changes, begging for changes. The grand jury is asking for changes. We hold the purse, in a sense, and even things we fund can be changed by jail operations. there's zero ability for us as a county board of supervisors to affect jail

remarks well I would just echo supervisor caps is primary point that professionalizing this role of the jail administrator and having a shared governance model where the Board of Supervisors and the sheriff are jointly making the decision about who that person is will increase accountability and public access to decision-making the most glaring example that we had in Santa Barbara County was the Board of Supervisors set the budget for the sheriff and then in the middle of the year two years in a row the sheriff came forward with 10 million dollars in additional overtime charges that were not within that budget and the only response of the board has given the shared there or the fact that they have no ability to influence those those staffing decisions is to pay that bill and to cut other important county programs to compensate for that and the idea by having this dual role with the jail administrator is to just increase the collaboration and the cooperation between the sheriffs and the board of supervisors and to to have a better shared governance model and this is a very modest incremental step it's a permissive bill it's not going to solve all these global problems that we're talking about but it's a step in the right direction and I think it's an important bill respectfully request an aye vote from the committee thank you we

Bienvenido.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 1457, a bill that promotes community engagement and environmental justice element development and sets a compliance deadline for existing requirements. Ten years ago, California made a promise through SB 1000 that requires local jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities to include environmental justice in their general plans when they update two or more other elements Today a decade later that promise has not been fully delivered Many jurisdictions have not compiled or completed In 2023 UCI found that only 33 jurisdictions out of the more than 250 had an environmental justice element. Some jurisdictions have only updated one element of their general plan, which in turn has not triggered the environmental justice element under SB 1000. This means that too many communities have been left without the protections that they deserve and were promised. Families are still living next to pollution sources and communities are still being left out of planning decisions that shape their daily lives and their health. AB 1457 closes the compliance gap. It sets a clear deadline of June 30, 2028 for jurisdictions that have not yet adopted an environmental justice element despite having disadvantaged communities. It strengthens transparency so communities can see what is being proposed. It includes meaningful public engagement so residents can participate in shaping their own neighborhoods. Every Californian should have the opportunity to live in a community that is healthy and safe. With me today to testify is Jana Staniford with the California Department of Justice and Annabelle Marquez with the Committee for a Better Shafter and her translator. We also have Jessica Gordon from the DOJ as a technical witness.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Jana Stanford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate for Attorney General Rob Bonta. And on behalf of the AG, I want to start by thanking Assemblymember Brian for authoring this important bill, which the AG is proud to sponsor. The AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our Bureau of Environmental Justice to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards. Our Environmental Justice Bureau developed this bill because a decade after the seminal SB 1000 passed in 2016, our research indicates that less than half of local governments with disadvantaged communities in their jurisdictions have addressed environmental justice in their general plan as envisioned by SB 1000. SB 1000 requires local governments with disadvantaged communities in their jurisdictions to adopt an environmental justice element or incorporate related policies, goals, and objectives into other elements of their general plans when they concurrently adopt or revise two or more

Sure. This was my idea, and I amended the bill to try and restructure the board a few weeks ago because of the information and data collecting that my team had made in reference to a bill that we were carrying on behalf of the county. This information was shared to me by my team which prompted me to then rethink what my focus and intent was going to be. My limited time serving as a public servant whether was on the Anaheim City Council or the last term and a half here in Sacramento, a pillar of mine, a focus of mine, has been on good governance, transparency, and ensuring that public resources are not being misused. I led the charge on the Anaheim City Council against the sale of Angel Stadium. Unfortunately the former mayor who I served alongside with ended up going to federal prison as well being charged criminally for trying to undersell Angel Stadium and the surrounding property I led in part the charge against that So, again, I'm very vigilant when it comes to how public resources are used, considering we should all be responsible fiscal stewards, in my opinion, as public officials. So the idea came on my own and plan to continue those conversations. once this bill also is hopefully passed out of the sentence signed by the governor. Yeah. Two supervisors came to me, to the Capitol Office, but I didn't have a chance, unfortunately, to discuss about the issue they are facing. And in the meantime, originally, supervisors opposed to the bill, but through the process you made several amendments like we heard in the opposition statement, but now the opposition has been removed and they are standing neutral. So what kind of amendments have them to pull out their opposition and became standing neutral? Or can you elaborate the amendments specifically? Absolutely. Yeah. So the bill that I presented in public health was to restructure and remove the boards of supervisors from sitting on the Cal Optima board. In my opinion, that's what has historically politicized this board. and led to misuses and bad decisions. You can imagine why sitting boards of supervisors would not be happy with those amendments because those individuals that are, in my opinion, politicizing the board itself would be removed from the board. That was their main opposition to the bill. I decided to not move forward with that structure because I'll be the first to admit the concept that we put into language was not going to be most efficient, and I wanted to make sure that whatever restructuring did take place was going to be in the best interest of the residents, the best interest of the stakeholders, and deliver on what my hope was, which is health care services to our Orange County residents. So that was the bill then when I decided to, after conversations with them as well, to move forward with an audit of the Cal Optima board. That is when my understanding is that they decided to remove their opposition because I am not focused on removing their authority from the board through this bill. Okay, by restructuring, how can you guarantee there will be no misconducts or corruptions that you are describing and worried about? Sure. It's a calculation. The actions that have taken place, my understanding is that they have been, and again, much of this is public information, has been led by the county boards of supervisors who sit on the board itself. So again, by removing their ability to dictate and to engage in the CalOptima decision-making process, I think that in and of itself would depoliticize the board and allow for the board to focus on providing health care to the residents. I shared in my comments that the Cal Optima structure is unique. It's the only kind in the state where the state has jurisdiction over the county health care system. So I also feel like it's my responsibility to engage in this fashion because of the statute and makeup. My understanding is that the Cal Optima health care plan is independent from the county board of supervisors. There's coordination, of course, because of the county health care department as well. But CalOptima as an entity is an autonomous individual entity. So, again, by the removal of those supervisors, in my opinion, you would remove one of those challenges that the board currently has. This has been expressed by sitting board members that they feel like the board is overly politicized by past board members who I've sat on the Cal Optima board. I've had multiple conversations, not of my own proactiveness, but people reaching out to me, sharing their experiences as well with how challenging it has been from health care providers to clinics to physician organizations, individuals, elected officials abroad have all shared a certain perspective and frustration because of the current system. So, again, that is the that was the intent of the last bill. This bill aims to audit the board itself to give me a better sense of how I'd like to move forward in the future. Many elected officials, city council members, mayors, and county supervisors, I've gone through that. That's why I know that many committees and commissions governing, oversighting different areas in Orange County, we serve there. But at a particular given time, particular members may have problematic characters and exhibit the behaviors that you are describing, but not necessarily throughout the history. Overall, they are there to serve. So I trusted that shaking up the structure of the board will solve the essential problem that you are talking about. As long as the former former, no, not Irvine, Anaheim mayor going to jail has nothing to do with this situation. It's an individual no matter who the person is, there's a potential for corruption. And that's the reason we have objective eyes and eventually we catch them and try them and send them to the jail. and the former Orange County supervisor Andrew Doe, also we all know that that's a public knowledge and he's paying his dues, his misconduct with the funds as a supervisor. So I don't know whether he's sitting in jail or his plan to be in jail. So ultimately they know they will be responsible for their conducts, but the essential restructuring of the make of the board will solve the essential problems that you describing I not sure

Yes.

hence why I decided to amend the bill to this capacity. I do believe that there needs to be strategic coordination between the county and this health care provider. Again, I don't know what that coordination should consist of, whether or not boards of supervisors should have the authority to appoint every single one of those board members, and then they themselves also sit on there. They themselves sit as non-voting members if county health care department's heads should sit on that board to ensure that coordination. Again, I don't know, but you have my commitment that this bill will move forward as is. I want to thank the chair as well for her amendments and help. Thank you very much.

Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2415. This is a very simple bill that is seeking to help many pro-housing communities that are in the state, including a city in my district, the city of Folsom, as they aim to protect the character of the historic districts. It would slightly alter SB 79, very narrowly tailored to allow a city, if the majority of the transit oriented development zone is part of a local historic district to reduce the capacity in one zone by more than 50% the bill lays out criteria for how this can happen with that today is Folsom City Council member Mike Kozlowski in support of the bill as well as Jerry Brno with Brno Development Corporation to share some comments as well thank you

Absolutely. I appreciate all the comments and the support. I think it is notable there is no opposition to this bill I think the reason for that is because we have worked with all stakeholders to make sure that We're not, you know exempting anybody with this We're simply allowing a common-sense shift to take place within a community that's very pro-housing and I appreciate the support and would ask for an aye vote

The bill is a simple AB 79 cleanup bill as well. SB 79 was A groundbreaking bill, as we heard, in terms of protecting historic resources, did not make clear that historic resources on a state or national registry were protected. This bill clarifies that, that not only local historic resources, but historic districts, anything included on a state or national register, would be protected as well. So we view this as a very narrow clarification bill. Here with me is Kira Ross from the City of Pasadena and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for all your work on the bill. Thank you to the Chair of Housing for all his work and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Jose David Alonso. I come from the city of Guatemala, this country, and I work as a gardener. I live in the city of Altadena, but the fires that were given affected my work and my income, since the houses where I worked were consumed by the flames. As a result, my work was reduced to only two days a week. Now I have to get new clients to improve my income and cover my expenses. But the city is asking that we change our work team. Currently, we are using gasoline machines and is asking us to buy electric machines, which means double-gast, since the electric tool has a high cost of economic cost. Now, I just have to know the Pasadena Center. I'm approaching them to see if they can help me to get jobs to improve my life system. Although it's a pleasure to work my work as a gardener, because my clients are happy with my service, That leads me to continue on with my work. Although, at one time, a neighbor insulted me for the reason of being using a gas pump. He said he was going to report to the city, and that's why I'm here representing my garden colleagues, since they are also going through the same problem. Como ciudadano, comprendo que debemos cuidar el medio ambiente y también nuestra salud, pero necesitamos desapoyo. Gracias.

Good afternoon, Chair Durazo and committee members. My name is Daniela, and I am a policy analyst at the California Immigrant Policy Center. We are a statewide immigrant rights advocacy organization and proud co-sponsors of AB2635. In the past years, California has taken key steps to reduce air pollution by transitioning away from gas-powered landscaping equipment. In 2021, AB 1346 passed, beginning that phase-out upset equipment, highlighting California's commitment to improving air quality across the state. However, one of the things that we've noticed is that in order for that transition to succeed, it must also include the voices of those most impacted, like landscapers and small businesses. The reality is that thousands of the workers who maintain our neighborhoods, parks, schools, and businesses are immigrants, small independent landscapers, or small business owners. They do physically demanding work that keeps our community healthy and beautiful, yet many face barriers that make it nearly impossible to access the existing voucher programs that are supposed to support their transition to electric equipment. This includes language barriers, business license requirements, upfront costs, and for some, fear of interacting with government agencies that have left many workers behind. Without meaningful support for the transition, local bans on gas-powered equipment could also and do push hardworking families into debt through fines and penalties, even when they do want to comply but simply cannot afford new equipment. Our workers have shared that many of them who are here today have shared that transitioning their equipment to electric could cost anywhere between $3,000 to $5,000. This amount increases for small businesses. This bill offers an alternative, more just path. We've received bipartisan support in two of our committees with the most recent 7-0 vote in Senate Environmental Quality. It expands access to voucher programs, accepts alternative documentation, protects applicants' privacy, and ensures that air quality management districts have voucher programs available to workers contingent on state funding. With this bill, California has the opportunity to show that climate policy and economic justice go hand in hand. Let's provide the tools to make this transitional equitable for workers and small businesses. We should never force workers, landscapers, and small businesses to choose between supporting their family and complying with environmental policy. I respectfully urge for an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who is here in support of AB 2635? Please come forward. Hi, good afternoon. Luz Castro, I'm the Associate Director of Policy at Inclusive Action for the City and a proud co-sponsor of the bill in support. I'm also here to provide a Me Too for CalCCI, which is a coalition of over 40 CDFIs in support as well. Afternoon, my name is Cal Soto, Workers Rights Director at the National Day Labor Organizing Network and I'm here in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Giovanni Rossell, I'm here with Endalon and as a member of the group Autodefensa Rapid Response Network, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jose Rivera. I'm coming from Pasadena JAP Center, and I'm here to support the bill. Gracias. Hello, everyone. My name is Nancy. I'm an organizer with the National Daily Labor Organizing Network, and the ISARO Southeast LA Network, and I'm here in support of the bill. Thank you. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Teresa Sánchez. Vengo a apoyar a la ley 2635 y vengo de Pasadena Young Center. Gracias. Hi, my name is Maria Rivera. I come from Altadena. I can support the bill. Gracias. Sí, bueno, mi nombre es Cirilo Hoyos. Vengo representando al Comité de Altadena, California, con la propuesta AB 2635. Gracias. Gracias. Good afternoon, my name is Roger Cruz, we are representing the Job Center of Pasadena, California, and we are coming for the AB 2635 in support of the gardeners. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Blanca, I'm representing the Committee 403 of Altadena Figueroa and I'm supporting this, the AD 2635. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Vilma Torres, I'm representing the Committee of the Pazadena. Good afternoon. My name is Herman Barahona with the Sacramento environmental justice coalition We're here in Yolo Sacramento in Placer County, and we strongly support the bill Thank you Good afternoon. My name is Finn West. I'm a community member and I'm voicing my support for the bill. Thank you Hi, my name is Felix Menendez. I am the CEO from Salva and I am here for support 2635. Thank you. Thank you Hi everyone, my name is Eduardo from Salva at Palmdale, California and I support 2635. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Fredy Torres and I'm from Salva and Palmdale and also to support the proposal 2635. Gracias. Good afternoon my name is Emily Yala and on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights we are in support. Good afternoon Chloe Amosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody my name is Rafael Guerrero and I'm here to support the bill thank you. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Christopher Sanchez with the Masavada group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Cades and in strong support. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2635 Good afternoon Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Yes you have two minutes each Thank you Yes, thank you. Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Those are the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. We're in respectful opposition to the bill. We understand that the author and sponsors are trying to help workers financially, and protect their health, and we sincerely appreciate that. But at the same time, air districts are responsible for improving air quality and public health for the most people in the community with the limited dollars that we have. Districts determine how funding is directed based on their federal attainment standards, status, excuse me, and also regional and local priorities. districts do support lawn and garden incentive programs and in fact approximately 70% of the state's population resides in a district already offering a program but I have to point out that these programs don't compete with heavy-duty projects on cost effectiveness and then also the bill creates a new mandate for many districts to establish an entirely new program which we don't think is appropriate and while the amendments contain contingent appropriation language. If any money is provided, then all the requirements of the bill apply. And so what happens if funding is provided one year and then goes away? Do we lay off staff hired to develop and run the programs? And if funding is inadequate, will districts have to pull resources away from other important programs that are resulting in greater public health benefits? This also could create an unfunded state reimbursable mandate. In some districts, in fact, staff costs to develop and administer these programs could be more than the incentives that would actually be offered. And last, I'll just say that the bill requires districts to provide assistance in any language, and there's over 200 languages spoken in California. So while we appreciate what the goal is, we think there's some real issues on what's in the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's I'm the legislative officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, a nine-county regional agency, and our board is comprised of 24 county supervisors and city mayors and council members. We've had an opposed and less amended position for several months now, so I just wanted to briefly offer the Bay Area Air District's perspective. We currently do offer a pilot program, lawn and garden equipment program within our four AB 617 communities. But we also take it very seriously that we have to make good use of taxpayer funds. And so we do have requirements for business licenses to know that people are going to be using the equipment within the areas that they represent. And we're required to provide 1099s to folks when we give away taxpayer money. And so it's important for us to at least know that when we provide funding for these programs, that it's being provided to someone that's going to meet the requirements. And so we're concerned that AB 2635 creates some requirements that really wouldn't align with the way we treat funding in our Carl Moyer program right now, which is where we fund our lawn and garden program out of. And 2635 would require us to create a brand new program if funding is available which would be different from our existing program and as my counterpart said if funding is available and then not available we end up creating a new program getting rid of the program creating it again as funding becomes available or not available and then just last I would say that that 2635 contains provisions that appear to limit our ability to ensure accounting accountability measures are in place And we do support privacy and what the overall goal of this bill is. But there's also some overly broad restrictions on sharing of personally identifiable information in a way that could adversely impact our ability to partner with third parties in dispersing funds under this program. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2635, please come forward. Good afternoon, Anvi Chobol on behalf of the American Lung Association and respectful opposition. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none, questions, comments, Senator Arreguin. Thank you. I just want to understand what the bill is currently because I know you're accepting the committee amendments. So one of the amendments, and I appreciate you making this amendment because I have concerns about this provision, would have prohibited local government from adopting and enforcing an ordinance prohibiting gas-powered equipment unless it provides these vouchers. And as a former mayor and local government official in a city that has a prohibition on gas-powered lawn blowers and other handheld equipment, small equipment. We adopted that policy over 30 years ago for a reason, which is to reduce emissions and to preserve the health and safety of our community. Similarly, Berkeley adopted a policy to ban natural gas infrastructure in new buildings for the same reasons as well. So my understanding of the bill, one, would establish this voucher program upon appropriation of the legislature, and two would establish statewide enforcement standards with the amendments we are taking out that preemption so local government wouldn't have to wait for an air district to have funding for a voucher program in order to enforce so that's sort of what that means and then the second piece can you remind me what you just enforcement standards so oh yes letting a city or county adopt its own ordinance establishing certain enforcement yeah that ordinances would establish a statewide enforcement standard yes we are proposing in the bill a fee structure based off of other models one currently in Glendale that we've seen and I can share a little bit more about that as well and how we came to those just it's cannot be enforced as a and fracture and misdemeanor but rather would establish penalties for yes relations and the number of violations that occur yes exactly okay okay that's helpful I just wanted to understand the what the bill is currently in print now and I will support the bill today I do share some of the concerns that were expressed by the air districts but I do want to make sure we can support this this industry and so I will vote for the bill today okay yes Senator Soghiardo thank you very much So here we are two years later all of these concerns were expressed when the original bill was going through, including the timeline. Everybody said, well, they got three years, they got two years. It'll work. Obviously, it does not work. We have a bunch of people that have perfectly good equipment that now our timeline, because we have a mandate now says oh you got to replace it here's your window to replace it and then next year the city's gonna go hammer you guys with with with our code enforcement officers we have made people's lives considerably more difficult especially when you're talking about informal worker agreement you know what a phase of people that go I go walk my neighborhood all the time and we have people out mowing lawns and doing all that stuff there too skipped weeks from not having a job because people are on a short leash when when it's it comes to their gardening and that because another person would be more than happy to do it So what really needs to happen is the mandates, we need to change some of these dates. We need to push some of these off so that their equipment can wear out and they can replace these things in a more natural way. It's not going to make the electric stuff that we're making them buy any cheaper. But, you know, there are other parts of this that never made sense in the first place when you're talking about, and especially these particular workers. If you've had electric equipment, which I have, I am constantly changing the batteries. And the batteries aren't $30, they're $100. It's impractical for this set of workers to be doing this. And the effect on our environment is negligible in the big scheme of things. so i feel bad for these folks because we we this is what we went after four years or three years ago when this bill was being introduced was this was what was going to happen and here it is three years later they're up against the deadline they don't know what to do they got perfectly good equipment that they got to throw away and somehow we're somehow we're going to figure out a system to help them buy new equipment but guess what now they have to be more formal than they were before they have to do these 1090 they have to do their 1099s they've got to do all these other things we have made people's lives very very difficult and they're the people that this body not just us but our entire body proclaim that we're trying to stick up for the most so yeah hard for me to get behind this I'd rather see the mandates pushed back so people can do their jobs and start planning long term to replace equipment as it goes out we are not going to die we've been doing this for me personally 66 years now mowing lawns with gas-powered mowers and I the ill effects have not caught up with us yet. I get it. Everybody has a job and everybody thinks that if they don't do their job somehow we're all gonna drop dead tomorrow. We're not. We're not. We need to think these things through a little more. We need to think through our timelines a little more. We need to make the adjustments on all these ridiculous mandates that we put on everybody, because this is the end result. And that's what frustrates me with what we're dealing with here. Your bill is not a bad bill at all, But it creates even more problems for people in the process of trying to apply and get these vouchers so that they can replace their saying. And in the meanwhile, we got code enforcement coming to get them. I mean, it's absurd. It's absurd that we don't recognize this damage before it starts. That's it. Senator Ashby. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. First of all, thank you everyone who came, made the journey to Sacramento. I get to represent Sacramento, so welcome to my home if this is not where you're from. And if it is where you're from, congratulations on living in God's country. our favorite place in the state. Right, Maria Elena de Raza? Of course. No, she doesn't agree. Okay. Listen, I think this is California at its best. This is what we do. We make big, audacious goals. We focus on your health and well-being. We make decisions about air quality, and we say we want you to live in healthy communities. And then, if there's a problem with the way we've structured it, we come back and we write another bill and say, this piece we need to fix. And that is what you are doing, Assemblywoman. This is the best of California. This is democracy. We swing for the fences. We try really hard. We make your communities as strong as we possibly can, as healthy for you and your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren as we can possibly get them. And at the same time, we make a commitment to help you be able to earn a living income, a good living wage for you and your family. And if something that we do conflicts, we come back and we grapple with it again. Whether we're the mayor of Berkeley or a vice mayor of Sacramento, we take those competing initiatives and we try to find a pathway forward. I'm proud of the Assemblywoman and I'm proud of all of you for showing up here to share your concerns with us I'm also proud of the state of California for setting big goals for your health care and for your family's health For the air that we breathe and the water that we drink to make sure that you're safe and that your families are safe This is a good bill. We'll find the balance and we'll figure out how to help you and at the same time we'll figure out how to be less dependent on gasoline so that we can save our communities. I appreciate it. I support the bill. If it doesn't already have a motion, I'll make the motion. Anybody else? Senator Cervantes? I'll just make a brief comment and just state, you know, of course my thank you for all those who showed up today in committee to testify and share the challenges and hardships certainly empathize with that and want to reach our climate goals here in the state but at the same time finding a balanced approach to achieving that I know is a difficult one certainly hearing the concerns that were laid out today as we have these conversations and continue moving it forward I will support it given the amendments that have been taken and hopefully the conversations that will continue with getting to the goal in mind. Thank you, Senator. I just want to say, I want to say welcome to all of those who came today, no matter if it was Sacramento or Pasadena. We thank you very much for taking time to lose money for being here. It's a very big challenge for us to have the correct balance between a clean environment, the air clean and also to sustain economic, to have jobs that pay. And that's why we are in that struggle. We don't have to choose between one or the other. We have the right to have a good job and also clean air. But many times we have laws that only benefit one or the other and not the other. So, that's what we have to learn. And I think that's part of what we're saying here. But we're very much agradecer. This proposal is very good, very important. I wish we had that vision before, when first passed the law. But here we are to correct. I think that's what I'm saying my other colleagues. So, thank you. And I'm also here in support of your law. Motion. Senator Ashby. Closing remarks. Yes, I just want to recognize that moments like this don't always happen up here. And I'm really grateful to be here to represent this coalition who sat down and talked about how our existing laws were impacting them and what was working and what wasn't. For landscapers, it's not just a job, it's economic opportunity, it's home ownership, it's small business ownership. And this bill showcases that they're not trying to opt out of our clean air goals. they want a chance to help meet them. And so by creating a realistic pathway that maintains their livelihoods and keeps us on track to meet our goals. So thank you for hearing us today and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Motion made by Senator Ashby. The motion is due, passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Zorazo? Aye. Zorazo, aye. Choi? Araghin? Aye. Araghin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Sayarta? 4-0. Thank you very much. Gracias. Next on the list is Assemblymember Addis. This is AB 2254. Good afternoon, Assemblymember. You may proceed with AB 2254. Madam Chair it looks like a previous witness left something Thank you so much Madam Chair and staff and members of the committee We are here to talk about AB 2254, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act. And for the sake of time, I'm going to shorten up my comments and turn it over to my witnesses. But I do want to start by accepting the committee amendments. And just say that this bill is pretty simple and straightforward in that it would require local governments within the coastal zone that have monarch butterfly overwintering sites within their jurisdiction to develop and implement overwintering site protection policies as a normal part of developing their local coastal plan. And the problem for monarch butterflies and for our coastal economies is dire. We have had about a 95 percent decrease in the Western monarch population since the 1980s, meaning that the population is at risk of collapse. It's not just environmental or biodiversity problem. It's also an economic issue for our Central Coast communities that have monarch overwintering sites that thousands and thousands of people come to every year to see the monarchs, to spend money in our local communities. And with the decline of monarchs, we have seen a decline of visitors coming to see the monarchs. So it's both a biodiversity issue that we're trying to address as well as an economic issue. With that, I've got two witnesses here with me, Angela Laws, Endangered Species Conservation Biologist and Climate Change Lead with the Xerces Society, as well as Scarlett Winterholm, Central Coast resident from my district and EQCA intern in our office who happens to live near one of the overwintering sites that's very important to the Central Coast and I'll turn it over to them. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Angela Laws, conservation biologist with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Our organization has been working across California for decades to conserve monarch butterflies and their habitats they depend on. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2254. The science is clear. Monarchs are in trouble. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the monarch butterfly warrants listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Xerces Western Monarch Count has documented only 12,000 monarchs last winter, down from millions in the 1980s. These extremely low population numbers put Western monarchs at risk of serious collapse. Overwintering sites are forested groves along coastal California and they are absolutely critical for monarch survival. Without these sites, we will no longer have migratory monarch butterflies in California. Yet these sites are destroyed or severely damaged every year, primarily due to the trees where monarchs roots being topped or cut down. Once these overwintering groves are lost, they are impossible to recreate. While some regulatory protections exist through the Coastal Act, there are significant gaps and inconsistencies in implementation. AB 2254 offers a practical, tailored solution. By requiring the adoption of overwintering protection policies, this bill creates clarity and predictability while protecting vital monarch habitats. For the future of California monarchs I respectfully urge your support for AB 2254 Good afternoon Chair and members My name is Scarlett Winterholm and I was born and raised on the Monterey Peninsula Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today to share my strong support for AB 2254 and what I've seen firsthand as a Central Coast resident regarding our diminishing monarch population. When I was young, every fall used to bring excitement and anticipation. Our large monarch population would flood my hometown with pride. Monarchs used to be a part of my normal life. Whether that was field trips in elementary school or walks with my grandmother in Pacific Grove, it was normal to be met with the sight of our town's mascot, monarch butterflies. We call it Butterfly Town, USA, but the truth is that will be a term of the past if we don't act quickly to preserve what little habitats we have left. As I sit here today, I can't say that time of year brings excitement anymore. Now it brings anxiety, because the monarchs I once saw as a young girl don't join me on my walks anymore. Throughout the next few years, kids from my hometown won't get the same experience I did. Instead of seeing them on field trips or in the garden, they'll learn about them in the classroom. And they'll learn that the reason they don't see them anymore is because we didn't do enough to protect them. These habitats can't be rebuilt, fixed, or replaced. And as we lose more of them due to human development and climate change, all us locals can do is speak to lawmakers and ask them to make this a priority. This isn't just about butterflies. it's about whether we as Californians are willing to protect the places that make our state worth growing up in a B 22 54 is a chance to do that before it's too late I ask you to vote yes on a B 22 54 thank you for your time thank you very much do we have anybody else in support of a B 22 54 please come forward good afternoon madam chair and committee members my name is Scott Cox here on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula regional open space district the California State Parks Foundation and the Semper of Irons Fund here in strong support thank you thank you anybody else in support saying none is there anybody in opposition to AB 2254 nobody okay nobody in opposition I'll bring it to the dais any the bill has been moved by senator Sayardo. Any comments, questions? None? Okay. I just want to thank you for your work. The monarch butterfly has a very special place in the culture, Mexican culture, and for Latinos. It's been adopted as a symbol of the migration that happens between Mexico, Central America, to this country and the resiliency of the community. So it plays a very special role culturally for our communities. Having said that, you may wrap up. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. With that, I'll use your comments as our close and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Call the vote. The motion is due. Pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Arrigan, Arrigan aye, Ashby, Ashby aye, Cervantes, Cervantes aye, Laird, Cigarro aye, Cigarro aye, 5-0. Thank you. And our last bill, Assemblymember Soria. Welcome. This is bill AB 2639. Welcome. Thank you, Chairwoman and members. AB 2639 is a very simple bill where it directs the Legislative Analyst Office to assess the Merced Flood Control District and make policy recommendations on how best to modernize the district to meet the needs of the county of Merced. the Merced flood control was established by AB 2926 in 1982 to receive and manage funds for flood management in Merced County it was modeled on previous legislation establishing flood control districts that that bill gave the county of Merced authority to act as the Merced flood control district however 40 years later the authority of this district has not seen significant use and the flood control needs of the county have only gotten more complicated. In fact, in 2023, the first year that I was here in the legislature, we had the atmospheric rivers and the levee on Miles Creek ended up failing, flooding the community of Planada, a farm worker community, and it damaged and destroyed nearly half of its homes. Even today, three years later, the community of Planada that is still recovering and suffering from a lot of PTSD in terms of just all of the losses that they've had. This bill essentially will help direct the future policy on the governance of flood control projects and operations in Merced County to ensure that one, these residents have the best protection from possible flooding in the future. And the reason why this is so important is that this wasn't the first time that we saw this type of catastrophic flooding happen IN MERCED COUNTY. IT HAS, THIS COUNTY HAS FLOODED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE LAST FEW DECADES AND SO WE MUST DO MORE AND I THINK THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, YOU KNOW, GETS THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ESSENTIALLY HELP THIS COUNTY DEVELOP A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT WILL HELP THEM ADDRESS THIS RECURRING CHALLENGE TO BE ABLE to not just call for the long-term investment that is needed but also create the flood protection that these communities deserve to have and with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Anybody else in support of AB 2639? Nobody? See nobody? Anybody in opposition to AB 2639? No one in opposition. The bill has been moved by Senator Arraguin. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, call the vote. Oh, I'm sorry, close out. Any other remarks? I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Rules. Senators Durazo. Aye. Durazo aye. Choi. Arrigin. Arrigin aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby aye. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes aye. Laird. Sayarto. Aye. Sayarto aye. 5-0. The bill is on call. We'll go back. Go back to the bills. Okay. Should I start with consent? Yes yes okay we going to lift calls with starting with the consent calendar the motion is to adopt the consent calendar which consists of file item number six ab 1622 file item 12 ab 1802 file item 14 AB 2219 file item 15 AB 2390 file item 24 AB 2512 file item 27 AB 2341 senators are you adding in I Ashby Ashby I layer 60 bills on call I remember one a B 306 the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 5-0 with the chair voting aye sentence Ashby Ashby I layered 6-0 it was on call call item number two a B 912 the motion is do pass to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 3-0 with the chair voting aye. Senators Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Cervantes? Cervantes aye. Laird? 6-0. Bill's on call. File item number 3 AB 956. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 1-2. Senators Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Cervantes? Cervantes aye. Laird? two file item number four a B 17 51 the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 2-0 Senators Choi Arrigin Arrigin aye Ashby Ashby aye Cervantes Cervantes aye Laird 5-0. File item number 5, AB 1457. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 1-2. Senators Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? 4-2. File item number 7, AB 1710. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 4-0 senators at again having an I ashby Ashby I flared 6-0 Bill is on call file item number eight a B 1740 the motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 3-0 sun is Durazo Durazo I I begin not again. I ashby Ashby I Laird 60 The bill is on call Item number nine a B 21 81 The motion is due pass to Senate floor. The current vote is 4-0 centers of again Navi and I ashby ashby I layered 60 bills on call okay we need a motion on a B 1801 senator Cervantes moves the bill the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor centers Durazo I throw azo I Choi Arrigin Arrigin aye Ashby Ashby aye Cervantes Cervantes aye Lair Ciarato No Ciarato no 4 Bill on call Need a motion on AB 2601? Moved by Senator Aragín. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo aye. Choi. Arrigin. Aye. Arrigin aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby aye. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes aye. Laird. Cigarto. No. Cigarto no. 4-1. Feels on call. File item number 13. AB 1820. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 1-2. Senators Durazo. Aye. Durazo aye. Ashby Ashby I Cervantes Cervantes I layer layer I five to the bill is out five to File item number 17, AB 2469. The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-1 with the Chair voting aye. Senators Aregine? Aregine aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Laird? Aye. Laird aye. Sayarto? Sayarto no. 5-2. The bill is out. The bill is out. We need a motion on a B 26 19 Moved by Senator Arraguin the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations Senator Durazo aye Durazo aye Choi at a yeet Arraguin aye Ashby Ashby aye Cervantes Cervantes aye Laird Laird I say our toe say our tone 5-1 The bill is out by one file item number 19 a B 2074 the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations The current vote is 3-0 with the chair voting eyes and there's Troy Ashby Ashby I Cervantes Cervantes I layered layered I 60 The bill is out 60 file item number 20 a B 2080 the motion is do pass to the Senate floor the current vote is 4-0 with the chair voting I centers out again adding an I ask me now should be I layered layered I 7-0 the bill is up 7-0 file item number 22 a B 21 88 the motion is do pass to the Senate floor with the current vote being 3-0 and the chair voting I centers are again I mean I ask me that should be I Cervantes Cervantes I layer layered I 7-0 file item number 23 a B 2194 the motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 2-0 with the chair voting I Senators Choi Arrigan Arrigan aye Ashby Ashby aye Cervantes Cervantes aye Laird Laird aye 6 bill is out 6 file item number 25 AB 2254 the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 5-0 with the chair voting aye Senators Choi Laird Laird aye 6-0 bill is out 6-0 file item number file item number 26 a B 22 57 the motion is due pass as amended to the Senate floor the current vote is 3 2 with the chair voting aye senators Ashby? Ashby aye. Laird? Laird aye. 5-2. The bill is out. File item number 28, AB 2415. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. The current vote is 5-0. With the chair voting, aye. Senator Ashby? Ashby aye. Laird? Laird aye. 7-0. The bill is out. File item number 29, AB 2576. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. The current vote is 5-0, with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby. Ashby, aye. Laird, aye. 7-0. The bill is out. File item number 26, file item number 30, AB 2635. The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. the current vote is 4-0 centers Choi layered layered I terrato 5-0 the bill is out file item number 31 the a B 2639 do pass the motion is do pass to the committee on rules the current vote is 5-0 with the chair voting I senators Choi Laird Laird I 60 the bill is out we need to yes you are I think you have to bring this to the local government committee. Just thank you so much for being our chair. We've really appreciated you these past three years. I know. It's really flown by. You know, you're off to local government, so hopefully a little training. You guys better give that mandate. You better fill that mandate every time you pass the bill. The first thing we're going to do is undo all the dirhazi bills. I'm just going to say, Elena, that's what you can do. I'm going to be your best friend now. She'll be coming in a hey. better give me your cell number thank you everybody we've done everything congratulations from ADU to monarch butterflies you name it it comes to the year thank you to my colleagues to the staff to the consultants thank you everybody who's here come on I wanted before everybody ran off you guys Ate it so much. Come on, come on, Ryan. Come on. These flowers look like a monarch. I'm sure they're native. I know they're native. Beautiful. Hang on, get the sergeant's up here, too. Carlos, you're holding us up. Come on. Come on. Thank you. I bet you it would be something. Beautiful, beautiful. Thank you. Thank you. I'll bring them over again or something. Oh, my God. You're gorgeous. Oh, my gosh. Thank you. Oh, we're not done yet. We're not done yet. We're not done yet. We're not quite done. We just wanted to get in. He's like, I know to go. No, yeah, we're not done yet. Just lifting a couple more buildings. Hey, I should get all those names out of you. Yeah. I want my name to, I want my name. Okay next okay next where this going there we go fleet consent calendar the motion is to adopt the consent calendar which consists of file item number six ab 1622 file item number 12 ab 1802 file item 14 ab 2219 file item 15 ab 2390 file item 24 AB 2512 file item 27 AB 2341 Senators Laird Laird I 7-0 the bill is up file item number one AB 306 the motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 6-0 with the chair voting aye Senators Laird Laird I 7-0 the bill is out file item 912 the motion is due pass to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 6-0 with the chair voting I senators Laird Laird I 7-0 It's a reminder. File item number three, AB 956. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 4-2 with the chair voting aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 5-2. The bill is out. The bill is out. 5-2. File item number four, AB 1751. The emotions do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 5 with the chair voting aye Senators Troy Laird Laird I 6 File item number 5 a B 1457 the motion is due pass the committee on appropriations the current vote is 4-2 with each year voting at Senators Laird Laird I 5-2 Bill is out File item number 7, AB 1710. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 6-0, with the chair voting aye. Senators Laird. Laird, aye. 7-0. The bill is out, 7-0. File item number 8, AB 1740. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 6-0. Senators Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. 7-0. 7-0. The bill is out. FILE ITEM 9 AB 2181. The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. The current vote is 6-0 with the chair voting aye. Senators Laird, aye. 7-0. The bill is out 7-0. FILE ITEM 10 AB 1801. The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate floor. The current vote is 4-1. Senators Choi, Laird, aye. 5-1. The bill is out, 5-1 File item number 11, AB 26-01 The motion is due passed to the Senate floor The current vote is 4-1 With the chair voting aye, Senators Choi, Laird Aye Laird, aye 5-1 The bill is out, 5-1 That's it, that's it That's it That's it Okay well hold on a bit Me too? Okay. Do we need to recess or should we? Should we recess? Okay, we're going on recess. Okay, we're going on recess. Okay. Now, one, two, three, four, five. Okay. Thank you, everyone. That's great. Okay. Okay. everyone that's it for our bills today thank you to everyone who participated in public testimony if you were not able to testify today please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate local gov committee visit or visit our website your comments and suggestions are and have always been important to us to want to include your testimony in the official hearing records I don't think all my colleagues for being here come on over here Jonathan Come on, Ryan. And we're going to say goodbye. Come on, Ryan, say goodbye. Bye, everybody. Thank you all. You've made this work so much easier. And I felt a lot smarter when I was around you guys. Anyway, thank you to everyone for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda. The last time I do this gavel, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.