Local Gov — 2026-06-17 (partial)

The Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. Senate welcomes the public in person. We are holding our committee hearings here in the Capitol Building. I ask all members of the committee to be present in room 112. We do not have quorum, so we'll begin as committee. Subcommittee. We'll begin as subcommittee. We have 14 bills on today's agenda, one of which is on consent, file item 13, AB 2640. Because we have a fairly long agenda, we would like to ask everybody to keep your remarks short. both Vice Chair Choi and I will be moving back and forth between four other total four committees today so everybody be patient. Senator Ashby will be absent today. Senator Ciardo will be presenting item number 10 and 11 on behalf of Assembly Member Johnson who could not be here today. So

Do you have any support witness?

Okay anyone in the public who would like to support this state your name in the organization and your position only No statements Mr Chair members Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Housing is a Human Right Division in strong support

Mr. Vice Chair, Bob Naylor representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr. He's in strong support.

Thank you. Okay, any opposition witness? Yeah, you can come over to the front. He, he, the table over there. You have two minutes. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, and then I'm the only one. and since we don't have any quorum at this time as a committee, we'll have to leave it open until enough people come back to vote on it. And for now, we'll leave it open for the vote later. Great. Thank you, Mr. Fischer.

Okay, we move on to number two.

Closing statement.

Thank you. Yeah, okay. We'll leave it open until the quorum is established. Okay, thank you.

We'll move on to file number two, AB 1786.

Thank you and good morning, Chair and members. Carolyn Shelby representing the SGV COG here as a sponsor and in strong support of AB 1786 This bill extends best value contracting authority for cities and specified joint powers authorities including the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments creating parity with procurement tools that counties have successfully utilized for years. At its core, the bill is about giving local agencies the ability to consider more than just the lowest price when selecting a contractor. Under the traditional low bid process, agencies often are required to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. That approach can work well for straightforward projects. However, many of today's public infrastructure projects are increasingly complex, involving utility relocations, environmental compliance, traffic management, grant deadlines, and coordination among multiple agencies and stakeholders. In those situations, experience matters, past performance matters, a contractor's ability to manage risk, coordinate effectively, and deliver a project on time and on budget matters. Best value contracting does not eliminate competition, nor does it disregard price. Rather, it preserves competitive bidding while also allowing agencies to evaluate both cost and objective qualifications to determine which contractor offers the best overall value to taxpayers. Counties have already demonstrated the value of this procurement tool approach. AB 1786 simply provides cities and regional agencies that same flexibility, ensuring parity across local governments and allowing agencies to choose the procurement tool that best fits the needs for that particular project. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Belmont and Thousand Oaks in strong support. Thank you.

Elisa Arcidio Kono on behalf of the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Coalinga, Diamond Bar, Dinuba, Duarte, Glendora, Hesperia, Industry, Kingsburg, Monterey Park, Monrovia, Placentia, Rosemead, San Dimas, Sierra Madre, Soledad, South Almonte, South Pasadena, Stanton, Tulare, Walnut, and Westminster.

Thank you. Okay. Any opposition? Main witness or in the public? I think none. We have one additional committee member. No comment. Okay. We'll leave it open until quorum is achieved.

Do you have any closing statements?

I don't see anybody. I don't know. Number six. Which one is it? Number six. Number six. Excuse me Mark Gunzoff is just walking Okay Do Okay do we have Assemblymember Pacheco Okay, sorry you've been sitting there. Number 6, file number AB 1712. When you are ready, we can proceed.

him to proceed. Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. My name is James Enriquez. I am the Director of Public Works and City Engineer for the City of Santa Fe Springs. I'm here today representing the City of Santa Fe Springs to request the committee's support in moving forward, Assembly Bill 1712. This bill would enable the city to expedite the consolidation of its water system through a sale to a larger water purveyor. This is critical since the city's water enterprise has been operating at a structural deficit for several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with subsidy by our general fund. Like many small municipal water systems, Santa Fe Springs rates have simply not kept up with inflation, and as a consequence, the city has deferred critical capital improvements for decades. We currently have over $150 million in capital improvement needs with literally no capital funding. This includes an aging pipe distribution system and more importantly no operable wells. Our two wells are shut down due to contamination that requires over eight million each in treatment upgrades. This requires us to depend 100% on imported water that is significantly more expensive and continues to rise in cost. AB 1712 would enable the sale of the water system to a larger provider with a larger rate payer base and more resources to implement capital improvements and provide a more reliable and cost-effective water source to our residents. This option has been successful for other cities in our region that were or are in similar situation, and we believe this is the best option to provide a long-term reliable water source and long-term rate stabilization for our customers and residents. Although the city raised rates most recently in 2020 by more than 30 percent over a four-year period, that simply has not been enough. We estimate that the next increase would need to triple rates in order to include an adequate capital improvement program, as we have seen happen recently in other Southern California cities. We simply can no longer compete with the efficiency and economy of scale of large water purveyors, so we ask for your support in moving AB 1712 forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Vice Chair. Kasha Hunt here with Political Solutions. I'm here on behalf of the California Water Association and the sponsor, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, in support. Thank you.

All the mechanism has been worked out.

No, we haven't. If this bill is successful, we will start down that road. It's about a year-long process.

Yes.

Yes.

There is an RFP process that we would go through.

Yes, thank you for the opportunity to allow me to present this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

WHEN YOU ARE READY YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A PRESENTATION OF COURSE THANK YOU MR CHAIR AND THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND COLLEAGUES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO SPEAK WITH YOU ALL HERE THIS MORNING You can go ahead and make a presentation Of course Thank you Mr Chair and thank you members of the committee and colleagues for the opportunity for you to speak with you all here this morning I am pleased to present AB 1679, which creates a temporary commercial activation permit framework for local governments to allow PAPA businesses to operate for 120 days. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chair, to the committee, and their staff for their work on this bill. I also want to thank the stakeholders who contributed to improving the bill and the opposition who have taken a neutral stance. In my district, in areas like downtown Los Angeles, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and many of our downtowns, we see storefronts after storefronts boarded up and vacant. COVID-19 had permanent impacts on the retail and restaurant sectors, forcing countless small businesses to close, and high cost to entry make businesses' prospects few and fair between. POPMA businesses are a proven effective way to activate these vacant spaces and give small businesses a boost. Imagine a traveling restaurant, a wedding dress trunk show, or a local artist showing off their new collection. Moving to these abandoned storefronts due to its temporary nature, people are more inclined to come out and shop at these innovative stores. Pop-up businesses drive local events, foot traffic, sales, taxes, and positive spillover effects to nearby businesses, especially as we're seeing with the World Cup. However, they are struggling to legally operate in our current permitting structure. Many temporary permits only last week, and the only other alternative is to apply for permanent occupancy. For a small business opening up temporary multiple cities for a single year, this is an extreme cost to that local entrepreneur. For example, Los Angeles, it can range from $80 to $184 of a temporary food facility permit. Their permit restaurant permit process will cost exponentially more. Pop-ups have been shut down because they lack a permanent permit or extensive renovations, even if they're considered a low-risk business. After trying to pursue their costly permanent permits, many businesses closed down and abandoned the space, leaving it vacant once again. Current requirements for PAPA businesses are disproportionate to the scale and duration of their use. AB 1679 will address these issues by requiring local governments to create a temporary commercial activation authorization, which will be a consistent, limited, low-risk framework to activate storefronts across our Golden State. As amended, local enforcement officers will ensure businesses meet all necessary health and safety requirements. The revitalization of downtowns and neighborhood commercial corridors is a statewide priority, and AB 1679 addresses commercial stagnation by supporting entrepreneurship, reducing barriers to entry, and creating a pathway from temporary testing to permanent tenancy. This morning, to testify in support of the bill, are two of our amazing witnesses, Eddie Navarrete who represents a sponsor of the bill the Independent Hospitality Coalition and Alan Morales first time to Sacramento who owns civil coffee and down to Los Angeles in the heart of my district would like to go first each person will have two minutes thank you good morning my name again

Chair and members, my name is Alan Morales. I am the co-founder of Civil Coffee, established in 2015, a Mexican-American coffee company in Los Angeles that my brother and I built from a simple pop-up into multiple cafes in Highland Park, Studio City, and downtown LA, employing dozens of people. My family story is that of an immigrant story. We started with very little capital, but we were willing to work hard and take risks. And like many entrepreneurs in California, our first step was not signing a lease. It was the test of an idea through pop-ups and temporary operations. That opportunity is critical in an industry where so many businesses fail. Before Civil Coffee, my parents invested what little they could to help my brother and me pursue our dream, and if we had failed, they could have lost everything they worked for. Many aspiring entrepreneurs are never given the chance to test an idea before taking on enormous financial risk. The challenge was that there was almost no pathway for businesses like ours, no clear guidance, no roadmap, and no practical infrastructure designed to help entrepreneurs prove a concept before committing to a permanent location. Too often, the answer is simply just no. Today, I've become a resource for aspiring coffee entrepreneurs. Every year, I receive calls from people asking me how to start their coffee business. And I want to encourage them, but the reality is that the current system often makes that journey unnecessarily difficult. I would like to change that, and I want future entrepreneurs to feel that success is possible and that California supports the entrepreneur spirit. AB 1679 creates a bridge between an idea and a permanent business, and it provides entrepreneurs a pathway to operate legally, responsibly, and transparently while they test their concept, build customers, and create the resources needed for a permanent location. Without the opportunity to start small, civil coffee would not exist today. The jobs we've created would not exist. The communities we serve would not have our cafes. I respectfully ask for your support and vote for AB 1679. Thank you.

Good morning, Shanta Pekin on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support.

Ergen, do you have any questions? This is a great bill. Thank you so very much, assembly member, for bringing it forward. I think this not just solves a problem in a lot of our downtowns and commercial districts where we have ground floor vacancies and wanting to activate those vacancies to have more foot traffic to improve public safety and economic vitality but also helps provide incubation spaces for small businesses happy to support this bill move the bill today love to be a co-author of the bill if if it's acceptable. I did notice a very minor drafting error in section 510 to 8.9 subdivision a where you wanted to I think add a semi colon so that the the particular stand where you're specifying certain standards that could be modified so I'll just I'll share that with you but I think this is a great bill and I think it's going to do a lot to help activate our downtown so to help support small businesses and thank you very much for bringing it forward thank you senator and senator you represent a diverse area that I know we've talked about that would benefit extremely from this and young entrepreneurship as well so thank you for that okay thank you my position is that I realize how difficult difficult it is to find a permanent place with the high, you know, rent in a fixed commercial area. And therefore, we do see this many pop ups, many different cities. But I wonder, each city is already doing their job, depending upon the local situations. one bill is requiring every city county to allow the pop-ups rather than leaving it to the local control city the counties depending upon location the character sometimes they may not would like to see that kind of establishments how would you like to respond why mandating by the state the legislature

leaving this kind of a decision to local government if you wouldn't mind my name I also have a day job I'm a restaurant architect and I see a lot of these you permit barriers for businesses and what these vacant spaces how hard they are to develop I've also experienced many different jurisdictions that are not built the same there are a lot of inconsistencies and there's lack of guidance in infrastructure for those jurisdictions and how to apply certain codes what this bill does is it creates that that infrastructure it creates within the health code it inserts within language that's already there within temporary events we just slip been this language so it doesn't have to put the burden on health officials we actually have been working with the health departments on this extensively with regulators and this is actually an example of working with the regulators boots on the ground about the issues that they deal with every day to come up with something that brings not only alignment but as a workable solution to come up with this very creative and beneficial program.

Okay. Chairwoman, we are dealing with number four, file number 1679, and all the support statements and all comments have been made, you can proceed from here. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking over. If we are all done, we're just closing. Closing, okay. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, and I want to thank the author and all the work that you're doing about this in our districts that overlap. This would be very, very helpful to anyone wanting to go through the path of building a business. So thank you very much for the idea and for the sensitivity to our community. So now, ready to vote? No quorum. Oh, no quorum. We'll take it up when we get the... Thank you, Senator. And from our respective district, did you want to say your name? What your business is one more time for the Senator?

Great. Great to meet you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Oh, we're going to jump. I think we're going to move on to Assemblymember Carrillo. If you want to come. Good morning. Good morning.

You may proceed.

Assemblymember, I'm sorry. I apologize. I just want to establish the quorum before anybody has to leave. Thank you very much. Sorry. Senators Durazo? Here. Durazo here. Choi? Here. Choi here. Arrigin? Here. Arrigin here. Ashby? Cervantes? Here. Cervantes here. Laird? Sayarto? You have a quorum. I apologize. Go ahead.

for Placer County. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at Spur, which is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1738. Homeowners and contractors often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take just five to 15 minutes, adding hundreds to thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative and standby costs. As a result, only 10 to 20 percent of HVAC installations statewide are permitted in California, and one CCA we talked to estimated that 30 percent of incentive money coming from the state for electrification is being spent on permitting and inspections. Remote inspections aren't a far-fetched technology of the future. They're a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and being used by over 20 jurisdictions in California, small and large. Life and safety concerns are not grounded in the reality that the most populous county in the state, along with other jurisdictions, have safely conducted hundreds of thousands of remote inspections for over seven years without a single incident. Nothing about the inspection process or the plan check or code compliance changes under remote inspection, except that inspectors don't have to drive an hour and a half to look at a smoke detector for a project. Contractors still bring the same tools and equipment to perform the same physical tests and checks for things like grounding of solar systems or water heater drain pipe length or roof pitch. The city of Sacramento requires these permits and more to be inspected remotely because it saves them such significant time and money. AB 1738 preserves full discretion for inspectors to require in-person when necessary while establishing much-needed best practices and standards statewide. California's housing crisis requires rethinking the status quo and building on the innovation of expertise of local governments. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you.

thank you very much like to ask if there's anyone in support of AB 1738

Madam Chair, Bob Naylor for Fuelset and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members, Stephen Stanzer with Brownstein. On behalf of Permit Power, a proud sponsor of this legislation, Housing Action Coalition in support, and I've also been asked to register support for the California Environmental Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Climate Action Coalition, U.S. Green Building Council, the Climate Center, and the Central City Association of Los Angeles. Thank you. Thank you.

We want to move on to those in opposition. Please come forward. good morning madam chair and members Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pied Trades Council the State Association of Electrical Workers in the California Coalition of utility employees we appreciate all the work that this committee and the author and the previous committees have done on the bill unfortunately we still have a number of concerns first and foremost you You know, Los Angeles County is most widely pointed to as the example. Los Angeles's building department, of which I represent the majority of the workers, is the most sophisticated building department, arguably not just in California, but in the United States. So to put the same mandates on the city of Eilton or small little jurisdictions that perhaps aren't sophisticated enough to put together a program with all the protections that you need to allow for video inspections is something that should be considered this mandate should be limited to larger counties and larger cities Secondarily we are vehemently opposed to the inclusion of photovoltaic and battery systems The evidence on the number of residential fires that have occurred through those is quite exhaustive. It doesn't put any size limit. Just because it's a single-family home doesn't mean that it's not a 15,000-square-foot home in the Palisades or in Malibu. Typical residential photovoltaic systems are 3 kV to 15 kV. That would be 40 square feet for 3 kV. That's a pretty big space. To 180 square feet for 15. But we commonly see big, giant McMansions and other houses with systems of 15 kV to 30 kV. Now you're talking 1,700 square feet. You're talking about multiple inverters. The engineering that go into these systems is much more sophisticated and doesn't lend itself to a video inspection. So we believe that there's still work to be done on this bill. And so at this juncture, we're still opposed, but hope to see amendments in future committees. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Ethan Naegler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Gina Gonzalez with the City of Lake Elsinore. While we do support the efficiencies in this bill, there is some work that needs to be done at the local level to how are we going to implement costs, recovering those? You guys should really leave it up to the local jurisdictions to decide which types of inspections should be streamlined through the remote inspections. Thank you. Thank you very much. Having seen no one else in opposition, I'll bring to questions or comments. Yes, Senator Arraguin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for the recent amendments to the bill. This bill is also dual referred to the Senate Housing Committee, so if this bill moves out today, we'll be hearing it next. appreciate the consideration of the application of the bill based on size of jurisdiction. I do think Mr. Wetsch raises a good point. Not every jurisdiction has the staff or the systems in place to be able to implement this. So I just wanted to have the author give further consideration to that point if this moves forward. But I will move the bill. I appreciate the work that's been done in this bill. and also for things that are not significant electrical or life safety related permits to give homeowners and property owners the ability to have a remote inspection so we can get those permits issued more efficiently, get homes built, which I think is our goal in the end. So thank you, and I'll be supporting the bill today. Thank you. Senator Cervantes. Yes, I just wanted to ask if there was any response as it relates to the concerns that were brought up by the opposition, by the office. Sure thank you for that opportunity. I did say Los Angeles County. I do have experience asking and scheduling building inspections in Los Angeles County. My mom owns a home in Los Angeles County. I did build an ADU. I did build room additions. And I can tell you that on the homeowner's perspective, calling for an inspection in L.A. County takes weeks. You have to go into a website portal, request an inspection at least two weeks in advance, and seldom they actually have to reschedule inspections because of the lack of building inspectors. So there's a difference of opinions when it comes to what the opposition said, to what homeowners go through when they are requesting building inspections through Los Angeles County. I also like to mention that during COVID, again with my experience being a city planner, WE DID A LOT OF VIRTUAL INSPECTIONS BECAUSE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC THAT WE HAD. SO BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE, I DO FEEL THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY MOVE BUILDING HOMES AND ROOM ADDITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT EVEN FURTHER. WE HAD ALSO INCLUDED ADUs IN THE BILL. WE HAD AGREED TO DO A LOT OF CONCESSIONS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BILL. BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WHEN YOU HAVE A POSITION STATING HOW THIS WOULD BE CONTRAPRODUCTIVE. But as homeowners struggle to get building inspections, again, with my experience, not only being a city planner, but also building room additions and use in L.A. County, there is a big frustration in doing that. Also, there's other jurisdictions that are already doing a lot of these things here, like here in Sacramento. We also consider to not include HVAC units because of the committee's proposed amendments. But again, to answer, I hope that answers some of your questions that you had. In terms of photovoltaic inspections, the opposition mentioned there's a lot of fires because they're doing rooftop photovoltaic system solar panels. I don't recall seeing anything about a fire on a panel, solar panels in single-family residential. But again, just a difference of opinions, and I hope that answers your questions, Senator. So I do want to recognize that I believe there is validity in having certain permitting with remote inspections. I, as a homeowner, have had my own issues with my water heater busting and having to wait for the city to respond. And when you're in an emergency situation, you know, you need action immediately. And so I think that there is ways, I'm hoping there's ways we can figure out a balance here. And just hearing the concerns, I'm hoping that as moving forward, you will continue working with the opposition to address those. I will support the bill today, but we'll further consider where I'm at in the future. Senator Choi. Yeah, I have a couple of questions. Number one is that I'm sure your bill intent to me, I understand, that's to expedite the building process and the permitting process because cities sometimes delay the inspector inspection, which causes money. And that's a good thing. but your bill is limited to single family units and two family units only? No more than that or commercial buildings? Correct. Is there any reason for that? that if they are good enough for single-family homes or two units, that should be also good enough of any other size. Thank you for that comment, Senator Choi. It is intended for single-family duplexes. Again the intention is to expedite the inspection process so that those premieres can be finalized in a faster manner Again because of the delays again in my experience with L County you have to schedule inspections two weeks ahead of time. Sometimes they have to be rescheduled. And also don't forget that homeowners work, and the inspections are done Monday through Friday, and sometimes they do miss a day of work to be able to be available for that inspection. But in short, to answer your question, you have single family and duplexes. Okay, and this will apply to new home building constructions as well as remodeling? Originally, it was intended for new construction. We wanted to have virtual inspections for the entire building process. With the exception of the foundation and the framing, inspections have to be by an inspector. But again, with the amendments that were proposed to us, we accept not to include those. You have specified exceptions. Yes. Let's see. So this will, now you said it applies to new constructions, but also will it apply to remodeling? Yes, correct. And restarting many things all over. A room addition would be new construction, yes, new home construction, yes. We, yeah, room addition is a new construction, but the remodeling. Remodeling, too, with the exceptions of electrical, plumbing, and the other amendments that we took from the committees. Yeah, currently there are several counties and the cities utilizing this remote video inspections under the current law. Yes. So it is determined by the local governments. And yours is mandating, requiring all the cities to do so. And the only good positive side, I see that at the option of the homeowner or the contractor's request, the city shall provide the remote inspection. That is correct. If a homeowner or a contractor wants to have an inspector come over to do the inspections, they can do that, yes. And from the experience and the sense you stated that you have experience in building inspections, inspections. The safety issue, obviously, when we talk about this approval or no approval, will be even visual inspections sometimes may be subjective, but video inspection will will avoid human eye inspections, thorough inspections. Isn't there any concern for the safety? Well, I think that what you stated with a video inspection, I think I understood that you said it's better for those that could miss the human eye. So to your point, if it's a video inspection, it could be safer. But again, because we are taking amendments from the committee because of safety one of those were the electrical inspections and plumbing inspections not to be virtual inspections an inspector would have to make those inspections okay thank you Okay Any other comments colleagues We worked really hard on this bill with the author, and because we basically don't believe that faster and saving money is more important than safety, we had to take that into consideration. So we made a number of amendments. There's the discussion of how far you go and how many exceptions do you make, but for today I feel I will support the bill, of course, with all of these amendments. But I do urge the author to continue to have the discussions because the issues that have been brought up have been very much in good faith about the safety aspect. So maybe it's something between now and the Housing Committee that can continue those conversations. So with that, take the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate all the work you and the committee put into this bill. We appreciate the hard work and the open communication that we had. So with that I respectfully ask when I vote The motion is do pass as amended to the The motion is do pass as amended to the committee on housing centers to Raza Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Abstain. Arrein? Aye. Arrein, aye. Ashwee? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Cervantes? 3-0. Okay. The vote is 3-0. The bill will remain on call. And we're going to go back now to file order. The next one in order is Assemblymember Jackson, AB 1578. Good morning. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. This is AB 1578, which seeks to require elected local and state officials to take anti-hate speech training by incorporating it into their existing sexual harassment training. While California has made some progress with hate crimes, overall hate crime offenses have still increased by 8.9% from 2023 to 2024. There is evidence that rhetoric from political leaders help to promote and shape norms that shift behavior. Hate-based rhetoric from political leaders has the power to embolden others to express and act on their prejudices. Conversely, messages from political leaders can also pacify violent attitudes. Elected officials must be aware of the implications of their words on social norms and democracy, and training can still instill a sense of responsibility in upholding these principles. With that, Madam Chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Witnesses in support? My gift to you no witnesses Madam Chair Okay Wait somebody did Anybody in support Anybody in support of AB 1578 Kaelin Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. Anybody else in support? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to AB 1578? Yes, please. Good morning. Good morning. Chair members, my name is Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, and we strongly oppose AB 1578. At the last hearing, I said you cannot regulate what you cannot define. Since then, the author added a definition. It does not solve the problem. It only proves it. Remember what this bill does. It mandates anti-hate training for elected officials, not the public, the lawmakers themselves, government deciding which views its own officials need to be retrained out of. The bill targets speech that vilifies, humiliates, and incites hatred, but those words mean different things to different people. What humiliates depends on the beliefs of the listener. So here's the real issue. A whole category of belief rooted in conservative Christian conviction is now routinely branded as hateful, not argued against, but branded. Those who disagree have stopped trying to persuade. They slander and shame instead. The goal is not dialogue. It's to shame people into silence. That is what this bill does to elected officials. It is a censorship strategy dressed up as training. So let me ask you plainly. Under the definition, is it hateful to say a child cannot be born in the wrong body? That girls' sport should be reserved for female bodies? That a school should not change a child's name without telling the parents? What about the elected official who decides not to use preferred pronouns out of a sincere religious conviction? Every one of those views can be called humiliating by someone. Assemblymember Jackson, you have given up persuading your colleagues on parental rights and pronouns and girl sports, and now you want to retrain them to teach the elected officials chosen by the voters that their views... Could you make your comments to us not to the okay? Thank you. All right. That was a Christian thing to do To teach the elected officials Chosen by the voters that their views are hateful no longer acceptable to speak out loud This new definition does not fix that it confirms that please vote no know. Anyone else in opposition? Please come forward. Hi, I'm Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry. On behalf of six California Baptist churches, Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, faith in Sheridan, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, faith in Tascadero and Lighthouse, and Santa Maria. We're in opposition. Thank you. Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry. On behalf of these five California Baptist churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock in Bellflower, Silicon Valley Chinese in Santa Clara, oppose. Christine Campbell in opposition. Pastor Brandon Campbell, California Baptist for Biblical Values, Pastor of the Faith Baptist Church in opposition. Damian Julian, full-time college student in opposition. Thank you. Seeing no more, I'll bring to the dais comments, questions. Senator Choi? Yeah, I won't be able to support this bill. This is to require additional training for state and local officials to receive specifically anti-hate speech. This is very subjective. Anti-hate meaning depending upon what the category, the subjectivity of that definition that one holds can be hateful speech. So who's going to monitor every speech that the individual makes is protected under the Constitution? However, also the responsibility follows. What I say, I will have to defend. I have to be responsible, not anybody else. workplace conduct or sexual harassment, all kinds of seminars that we are mandated to go through to take. This is not different from already mandated that required training that elected officials will have to receive. This is specifically language, anti-hate speech training. It is very troublesome and it is against our Constitution, freedom of speech. So, therefore, I won't be able to speak. Senator Adeyeng. Sorry, the law in California that you can't discriminate people based on protected characteristics in federal and state law. I think this builds on that, and I move the bill to the appropriate time. Thank you. I have a question for the author. With regards to how you would define hate, what is your response to that? We define hate by the definition that we have also been given in consultation with the Commission on Hate. And so this is not a definition that I just came up with or anything. This is about making sure that we're talking to professionals who actually have done and have a sole responsibility to combat hate in California. And so we've been working very closely with the Commission on Hate and its chair on this On this definition. So I think that's one thing that's important This is not a hate speech regulation bill We're very clear on people's First Amendment rights but what we are saying though and what evidence and research does show is that there a direct correlation between how elected officials public figures talk about and dehumanize people and the rise in hate on those specific groups in which they talking about the evidence is clear but we also have to recognize that sometimes elected officials don't actually know the connection sometimes and so we just need to make sure elected officials are aware you have the right to say whatever you want however you need to understand that you should be careful about what you say because it could actually lead to the death and hate crimes against particular groups. Now, once you're aware of that, you can no longer say, well, that wasn't my intent. Well, many things we say may not be our intent, but it can lead to what we say and what we do, in which I believe that's also a Christian principle we should be following. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I certainly intend to support your bill today, and I'm glad you're raising this. Hate takes over a lot of our communities and leads to violence, and it leads to other things that really hurt our community. So I'm very concerned about the level of hate that can go up, sometimes it goes down. There's hate against anti-Semitism, there's anti-Asian hate. Lots of examples in our communities. So I'm very concerned about that, and I think it's important to know and to have some kind of training and education on that that would help all of us. So I support your bill and ask for an iVote. Oh, so sorry, you get closing remarks. You know, Madam Chair, I think not a lot of people know that before I was sworn in, the Sunday before, I had to resign in my position as a youth minister in my congregation, as well as a Sunday school teacher. And my colleagues know I'm a person of deep faith, but I do not weaponize my faith against them nor do I try to use the apparatus of the government to force people to believe what I believe and live the way I live. And I believe it is a core principle to ensure that we are being as loving and accepting of all of God's people regardless of what they do and what they say. And so I believe that if anyone is going to profess to be a part of the Christian faith, that maybe they should try to start using rhetoric of love instead of attacking people, which is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus himself. and so I think that at the end of the day this bill is really about the idea that as a Christian I see people hurt and I going to do everything that I can to make sure that they are protected and safe and they have the resources that they need so that they will have the opportunity to be able to hear and accept and obey the teachings of our Savior I respectfully ask for an aye vote the motion is do pass to the committee on governmental organization centers Durazo I try to Raza I Choi Choi no Arrigin Arrigin I Ashby Cervantes Cervantes I Laird say our two three one We're moving on to item 5, AB 1693. Assemblymember Zabur. Good morning. Good morning. You may proceed. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office, and we'll be accepting the committee's amendments today. I just want to really do thank you. I know that this was a lot of time and effort over the last couple days, and I'm very grateful for that. I know we're still working on some of the details of the amended language with the committee staff, and the changes will be made when the bill gets to the Senate Judiciary Committee for timing purposes. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick-and-mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3 million Californians across 500,000 retail establishments, supporting statewide local economies. This sector is one of California's largest small business employers, providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities and others. Across California, small business and retail establishments face unpredictable local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardship, such as increased project costs, delayed business operations, and stagnant economic activity. When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it hurts not only the business but the workforce and the surrounding community. Just this weekend, I was actually at the Gay Pride Parade in Hollywood, and I was going down those streets and started taking pictures because I noticed just how many closed retail establishments we actually had on Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards and just noting how important it is that we make sure that these retail establishments, that we bring life back into these communities and when we do that, that it is done in a manner that is quick and is supporting this really important industry. Current law creates a streamlined approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects, establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small businesses to thrive in California and bring back our brick-and-mortar retail sector, which has been struggling. AB 1693 aims to address this by requiring local building departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and ensure those improvements meet all applicable building health and safety codes. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application The deemed approved provisions that were previously in the bill we agreed obviously to take out at the request of some of the important stakeholders Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. AB 1693 is critical as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards. Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill is Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association, which is one of the sponsors of the bill. Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association, and we are proud co-sponsors of AB 1693. We thank assembly members of BIR for working with us to address the issue of lengthy delays in tenant improvement projects retailers have experienced across the state. The California Retailers Association is the only statewide trade association representing all segments of the retail industry, including general merchandise, department stores, mass merchandisers, supermarkets and grocery stores, chain drug, and specialty retail, such as auto, vision jewelry, hardware, and home stores. These are the stores that you often see along main streets in your districts as assembly members have birth stated AB 1693 requires a sped-up process for approving or denying tenant improvement applications within 20 days This is needed as retailers have conveyed to us that permit turnaround times for tenant improvements routinely stretch into multiple months across California with average processing times around 12 weeks, but also reaching 31 weeks or more in some jurisdictions Retailers continue to experience reoccurring challenges including extended review periods, multiple rounds of comments, portal outages, and unanticipated intake requirements. We have heard from a member this past week that an application submitted in April has not yet been reviewed, and if they do not get approval by July, they won't have time to complete tenant improvements by the holiday season, just as one example. These lengthy review periods significantly delay basic interior build-outs. time is critical especially for small and mid-sized retailers delays can mean lost revenue higher construction costs and in some cases decisions to not move forward at all for these reasons the California retailers Association is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1693 and we ask for your aye vote today thank you Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1693? Good morning, Madam Chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California. We have no formal position on the bill, but just want to thank the committee, the author, and his staff for working with us to address our concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Shant Apekian on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support. Hi, Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, BOMA and AOP in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we'll have anybody in opposition. Anybody want to speak in opposition as a witness? No? Okay. Anyone of the diocese, colleagues, any comments or questions? We make a motion. moved by Senator Choi. Anybody else? Question, comment? No, seeing none. I just want to say I was glad to work with you and your staff to come up with this. We always want to do better by our small businesses and so this is important to them. And I think also is to remind ourselves that the more resources we have available at that level, we're going to be able to do more and do it faster. And so I just want to remind ourselves it's not where sometimes we think local government is holding back or not doing the right thing. I really do think at the core of it is resources. So we want to make sure that we're not taking away resources at the same time that we need more resources. So with that, thank you. I'm glad to work with you on this bill. Closing remarks? Again, I just want to thank the Chair for your focus and steering of this bill into a good place. And I thank your staff again and respectfully ask for an aye vote today. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. Senators, Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Laird? Cigarto? 4-0. Thank you very much. The Chair will have to go to another committee meeting. So file number 8, AB 1914, and Assemblyman Chiavo is ready. Thank you, when you are ready, go ahead. Thank you. Hi. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, members. I really appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1914 that would require local governments to include child care in their general planning efforts. Affordable access to child care is one of the most impactful things that we and our local partners can do to address our affordability crisis in our state. I've heard many times that parents are paying more for child care than they are for rent or mortgages, and that in my own family we had to make the decision when my leave was up and I went back to work for my spouse to not work and stay home with my child because it was going to be a wash and at least he could be there for our kid. So, you know, too many families are having to make these choices where they forgo income, education, careers, because of lack of child care. And this harms families and our economy. In my community of Santa Clarita, there is a development that's building 20,000 homes right now over a 10-year period. And there is no plan for child care for those families. there's a better way and when we don't support and encourage planning for childcare it's not going to magically appear without intentionality and that intentionality is what a B 1914 brings a B 1914 would require city county and city and county no later than January 1 2033 to prepare and adopt a childcare plan or integrate child care plan into the next adoption of their general plan to address the child care needs of that jurisdiction It highlights the importance of planning for child care in emergencies, as we saw play out in the LA fires, how critical that is. And it also has a flexibility that is allowed by existing child care plans to meet the requirements. of the bill. What this bill does not do is require certain amounts of childcare. Smaller cities with little demand can simply say they don't have demands for additional childcare and the needs of the bill are met. But we have heard that childcare leaders have tried to engage in this local process only to be met with confused looks and being brushed off that they don't belong in the conversation. So if we plan for parks where our kids play for maybe a couple hours a day, a few days a week, then we should definitely be planning for safe care of our children where they spend eight or more hours a day. And child care stakeholders like parents and child care providers need to be a part of that conversation and planning process. We took amendments from cities to address major concerns. I am thankful for local leaders and city support that we've received and want to note or highlight the City of Mountain View's support letter pointing out the bill's flexibility and preservation of local control. The bill is supported by First Five of California, Build Up California, California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, Child Action Now and Children Now, and the Child Care Resource Center. And today I have witnesses with me, Shelly Mazur, Vice President for Advisory and State Policy for the Low Income Investment Fund, and Pamela Campos, who's a San Jose City Council member. Okay, each of you only have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Vice Chair, committee members, staff. As you heard, I'm Dr. Shelly Mazur. I'm the Vice President of Advisory and Policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIF is a national CDFI with a vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being. We seek to achieve that vision by investing in affordable housing and child care facilities, as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure. Both make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and stability for families. We're pleased to sponsor AB 1914 to ensure that cities and counties recognize the role child care facilities play in communities, and that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan. We're grateful to the Assemblymember for authoring the bill, and we're very grateful to staff for working with us very helpful amendments to the bill. As a former City Council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building the supply of child care. We believe that, like housing, child care supply requires planning, and that cities and counties can support that through including child care in their general plans or by creating a separate plan. Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis that is exacerbated by lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB 1914 offers one by engaging cities and counties and further planning for the needs of their community by planning for child care. my own city Redwood City has included childcare in their general plan since 2010 as the city continued to grow and plan for growth in housing and its economic base This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build child care rather to work with the community to plan for and support child care facilities and programs Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of child care through work with cities. Planning for child care is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Durazo and committee members. I see she's not here. Sorry, my name is Pamela Campos, and I am the San Jose City Council Member representing District 2. But before I was a city council member, I was a preschool teacher. And so the opening remarks about how early childhood leaders are facing tremendous challenges and really looking to our elected leaders to help us make sure that this workforce and essential foundation for making sure children are on that right track for the best opportunities possible in their lifetime is why this work is so personally meaningful to me. As a council member, I believe we have an obligation to support early childhood education and fully invest in the future generations of our residents. If we want to build a sustainable future, we need to view child care and early childhood education as essential infrastructure in the same way that we look at housing, roads, and public safety. As it stands, we have significant unmet child care needs, and that needs to change. I'm here today to advocate for AB 1914, which would reaffirm that cities and counties must play a role in support of child care. The bill makes a modest and reasonable request that we in local government consider and plan for adequate child care services that will meet our future needs. As land use agencies, we have significant control over what gets built in our communities, and with that comes responsibility to proactively identify paths for more child care. I respectfully urge you all to support this bill, and I look forward to supporting its implementation in the city of San Jose. Thank you. Okay, me to support us in the audience. Good morning, Vice Chair and members. Jasmine Valle on behalf of California Coalition for Community Investment, CalCCI, in support of this measure. Thank you. Good morning. Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, proud co-sponsor. Good morning. Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Ruby Arceo on behalf of Children Now in support. Danny Kando-Kaiser here on behalf of Cameo Network and myself as a mom who struggled with childcare for too many years in strong support. Thank you. Any opposing witnesses in the opposing in the public? If you're not come to the register. Okay, go ahead. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and respectful opposition. Thank you. Okay, seeing none, I would like to ask my committee members any statements. Thank you Mr Chair I support this bill I do acknowledge the comments that were made by the League of California Cities that the state is imposing lots of unfunded mandates on jurisdictions particularly in the area of planning, and that there also are many laws that have been passed, including a bill last year by a similar of the authorities, to streamline the production and the permitting of child care facilities and mixed-use developments. Senator Skinner had a bill that allowed by right home child care uses in California. But I think what this bill does is ensure that's part of the general plan process that cities and counties are thinking about and planning for where child care can be located and develop programs and resources to help support more child care in their jurisdiction. I think it works in tandem with those bills that have been approved to streamline the process for permitting of child care facilities. With that, I want to thank the author for the bill, and I'll move the bill. Okay. Thank you. With the rising cost of child care, parents are struggling, and many times sometimes child care cost is even higher than what they bring home, and making difficult choices. And this is rising causes. Primarily we can attribute one of the major factors will be lack of competition. And we need to – child care is based upon the need of the population, and the population means how many homes will be planned in certain area. So that belongs to the city planning. the zoning and so certain area obviously city will have a plan for the general in the in the general plan which area will be residential if any cities like city that I come from is a plan the city has residential area and the commercial area etc which are separated that we know how many homes we are are expecting and a certain number of homes. We project also number of people who will be residing in that. So based upon that statistics, the child care service can be estimated. And unfortunately, in that planning, child care has not been part of that plan. and now with the current situation bringing into the general plan idea, the only question that I have is that will this bill apply to new plan areas or existing homes in their general plan update that they have to artificially, officially in other words the belated plan will have to be included even though City has been almost fully developed No, so one of the reasons that we actually pushed the implementation out to 2033 is to allow for cities and counties to go through their natural planning process and just incorporate it as they're opening up their general plans So we're not asking for a special process or any individual process. If they already have, you know, a plan for child care, in their community that can also meet the requirement. And again, there's no specific requirement for a certain amount of child care. It's really just the consideration, the discussion. You know, like you said, if there's a bunch over in my community, if you have thousands of homes going in that you think about, is there going to be a need for child care and are we meeting that? and that that's part of the larger plan that is being made. But I think, you know, to the point of Senator Aregine, that this is really complementary to bills that we have passed as a legislature before because while we've, I think, made it much easier for child care facilities to open up, to start, to, you know, be buy right, to remove fees, all of those things are important, but it doesn't always make it happen. We've seen that in housing policy, right? We've removed CEQA, and we've done a ton of things to try to meet our housing need, and still not enough housing is being built, right? And so I think this helps bring the intentionality of now we've removed a lot of barriers for these businesses to start, but let's think about where we want to make sure, you know, where there's the need, where we want to make sure these businesses are included, And, you know, and some cities can decide, look, if you're building an apartment building or a condo building with over, you know, 300 units, then you need to have a child care center in it. There could be decisions that communities make around that or certain requirements as community benefits for big projects coming in. I think this is a good opportunity to think bigger about how we do planning and making sure that, you know, this is such a critical economic need of families to be able to, as a parent, go to work and know that your kid is being taken care of and safe. You can't go to work if you don't know that. And so this, I think, gives us the opportunity to be more intentional about making sure that that happens. And I don't know if you have anything. Yeah, when you're being specific requirements in the general plan amendment, I'm envisioning a certain zoned area for residential. Obviously, these daycare centers are not a home residence. It is a commercial activity. So there has to be carved area, even though that specific large 10-acre, 20-acre area has been zoned as R1 single-family homes. but in the corner somewhere it will be easy place for families to drop them off. So it has to be integrated in the residential zoning with the exception carved out for commercial activities. So that's what I am interpreting. Am I understanding? I agree. I mean, yeah. So I think you make a perfect example of how, you know, without intentionality, this is not going to happen, right? If you have a community that doesn't have the zoning to allow for this to happen, then it makes it harder. So I think that this creates it And there you know local control still rules the day And so communities still have that flexibility to decide yes that makes sense for this neighborhood that being built or no there a child care center right nearby and we don need that Right. So so I think that it, you know, it creates that flexibility for communities to decide for themselves what really makes sense. Yeah, you triggered another point of view that worship centers for churches are in the same situation. Because I've seen residential areas are not the zone for institutions like a church. And when population grows, worship centers are needed, and many pastors are looking for proper site and renting schools, sometimes a commercial industrial area, which is not amenable, and also Sunday parking situation is difficult. So the commercial building space may be available, but the parking is not available. So they have to seek for permission from the commercial industrial owners on Sundays. Since you are not here, may we use your parking lot. And I've seen it in my city of Irvine like that. So I think these churches, what we may call worship centers based upon the population, and has to be part of the general plan, just like child care centers. That is another category. Maybe you can take up another bit later. I think there's a lot to be said for making communities where people live more walkable, having the kind of community you want to build more accessible. And so I think this is one piece of it on the child care side. Okay. Okay. With that, no additional question. You can make a closing statement. Thank you for the conversation. I really do think that this has been a priority of the Women's Caucus, something that we've been fighting for for a long time around more child care slots, more availability of child care. And I think that this is actually an incredibly impactful bill for the whole state to help us realize some of those goals, respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Motion? Okay, motion has been made by Senator Ergen. Please call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Human Services. Senators Durazo, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arine? Aye. Arine, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Laird? Sayarto? 2-0. Okay, 2-0. Leave it open. Now. Okay, next one is file number 9, AB 1997. I see Assemblymember Lee is here. When you are ready, begin. Thank you, Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 1997, the bill to shorten the review period for 90% affordable housing projects after the agency has certified the EIR. First, I'd like to thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I'm accepting amendments as described on page 3 of the analysis. The bill is intended to accelerate one portion of the approval process for affordable housing projects for very low and extremely low households These projects are the most critical to the most vulnerable and can make a difference between homelessness and a safe path towards a better part in life This bill is a narrow and focused streamlining. With me today in support is Rand Martin, representing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation. They are a substantial developer of low-income housing in the city of Los Angeles. We all know what the state asserts we need in terms of housing in the state. We all know how far behind we are in achieving those numbers. We also know how many affordable housing units we're behind as well for the folks that Mr. Lee has mentioned in his opening. The folks who have been watching these issues from the outside and inside the legislature have made it very clear. One of the primary reasons why we are so behind is time. I want to quote from the Rand Corporation that released a report last year that said the biggest thing driving up California apartment costs, time. The Assembly's own Select Committee on Permit Reform last year also said that collectively the result of our failed approach to permitting is an anemic level of construction for the projects necessary to address our housing crises. This is a narrow bill. It is really focused on affordable housing for those who are at the lowest income levels. We think that reducing the amount of days to 30 for a permit to be approved after the environmental process has been completed will help to jumpstart that effort for those million homes that are needed for extremely and very low-income people across the state of California. For those reasons, we ask for your support today. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience? Me too. Support? Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Stephen Sensler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you. Any opposition witness? Okay. I don't see anyone. I would love to bring back to the committee members for any questions. So file number 9, AB 1997, reducing the permitting process from 60 days to 30 days. Okay, if I don't see, I have a question. Your bill is limiting for affordable housing units. Why not open to any building permit process? Well, right now, it's bill is narrow in this aspect that this is about affordable housing for those with the greatest need right now, but I'm always open to conversations about streamlining in general. In general, any construction, sometimes they are waiting, waiting for the permit and the waiting period is all cost to them. So encouraging any homes, many homes, affordable homes, any projects will be in the same boat. just a thought okay you you're focusing on affordable homes with that would you like to make a closing comment I respectfully ask your aye vote okay anyway okay motion has been made by senator committee member arrogant please call the motion is do pass do pass to the committee on housing centers durazzo joy aye aye aye aye aye aye aye ashby cervantes cervantes aye laird I Laird 30 Thank you Thank you Okay next one is Dr. Arambula Number 14 Okay, next one is File number 14 I see Assemblymember Dr. Arambla, AB 2605. When you are ready, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present on Assembly Bill 2605. California's longstanding issues providing public defense to individuals who are accused of crimes has a real cost on the state's poorest and most under-resourced communities. Though the Sixth Amendment enshrines the right to counsel for defendants in criminal prosecution, the state does not currently collect data on how this public defense is provided at a county level. This has created a system where many defendants report never meeting their attorney and repeated failures to investigate the accusations made against them. AB 2605 addresses this issue by establishing reporting requirements on the nature of public defense services provided across the state. Most other states appropriate significant funding for public defense services, and California is an outlier in shifting this responsibility to the local level. This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue. Here to testify in support of AB 2605 is Ignacio Hernandez with the Wren Collective and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Two minutes. Great. Excuse me. Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which is a statewide association of criminal offense attorneys in private practice, also working in public defender offices and also on behalf of the Ren action group in support it was stated by the author I mean counties are front lines of providing defense for indigent individuals and criminal cases however the way counties provide that service is varied and it differs there's no baseline approach and oftentimes when we talk about the need for additional services their need for changes and policies and counties it's difficult to impose a statewide one-size-fits-all approach because each county may do it a little bit differently this is more than just a reporting bill and data collection this data because it's being required every couple of years will give a number of stakeholders and the state of California the ability to monitor what is happening in various counties as the author stated there's one county for example that is under a lawsuit right now because over an eight-year period 50,000 individuals pled guilty to a misdemeanor without ever having an initial conversation with an attorney that's the kind those are the kinds of you know practices that we're concerned about those are the types of practices that we need to monitor and keep an eye on and we need to identify what is happening in all the various counties we also have to see I know the committee analysis mentions more funding would be helpful. Of course it would. But every county is a little bit different. And if we don't know that in one county they're contracting with a private attorney firm and have an overload of cases, versus another county that is have in-house attorneys but they just haven't filled vacancies we don't know really where to put the money and where it's gonna be most effective depending on the county so this data would allow us policymakers and others to make those assessments and determinations on what's going to be best for each county so that we can ensure that if you need an attorney and you're assigned an attorney it's your constitutional right to attorney your indigent you will get the best legal representation possible for those reasons were in support of the bill. Okay, any Me Too supporters in the audience? Any opposing witnesses? Okay, committee member questions? You sure? Senator Oregon? Well, as the chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, I'm also joining the new independent Commission on Public Defense along with Chair Schultz in the Assembly, which is really looking at the issue of how we fund public defense in California, making sure we have enough staff and resources to provide public defense for people. Note that California significantly underfunds public defense compared to other states. I think this information would be very beneficial, not just to the state public defender, but the legislature as we're developing a state budget to make sure that we're putting the resources that are needed to guarantee right to counsel people in our counties throughout California so I move the bill okay I have a question I'm sure this is something useful when you collect the data but collecting data requirement on public defenders of what the specific data are you referring to did I miss? It's located within our fact sheet. Are you talking about the number or division? I'll give you the six criteria that we're asking for. First, it's a brief explanation of whether the public defense system is a public defender or an alternate public defender, a private attorney program or a combination of these systems. Second, it's the method and timing of case assignment. Third, it's budget and expenditure for each public defender, alternate public defender or private attorney system. Fourth, it's funded and filled public defense positions by type. Fifth, it's the number of cases assigned to each public defender, alternate public defender or private attorney system, specifying the number of homicide, felony and misdemeanor cases in adult and juvenile court. And sixth, it's the description of the compensation model for each PD, APD, or private attorney program. That's a lot of data that this bill will require. And obviously this kind of additional activities will require additional expenses. And my understanding is the local judiciary system right now, most of them are suffering with a shortage of their budget. And I don't know, this is not the priority or prerogative of this committee to be concerned. and more of the appropriations the committee may have to decide. But will there be additional resources provided to support this bill if it passes Recent amendments have added that it conditional upon appropriation from the budget We have a similar budget ask going on currently, and because of those amendments, we've had removal of opposition from the counties. So I believe since this is a policy committee, we should focus on the policy before us, and appropriations is a better place to consider this. But we have our sixth constitutional right that we also need to make sure that we're protecting. We can't shirk that responsibility as the state by having the county implement this for us. And ultimately, these are conversations that may need to happen during realignment if there's ever a time to discuss which responsibilities are to be done by the county and the state. But we bear the responsibility here at the states to ensure that we have that right to counsel. Okay, thank you very much. Did you have the closing statement? I just wanted to thank this committee for the opportunity to present. This ultimately is about fairness and ensuring that we have provided access to counsel. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, thank you. Did the committee member Erdogan make the motion a while ago? Yeah. Okay, then please call the wall. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Senator Cerrozo, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Sayarto? 3-0. Thank you. Okay, we'll place it on call for absent members, and we'll move on to number 12, AB 2224, Assemblymember Hardwick. There she is. you can begin when you are ready thank you so much mr. chair and members I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working collaboratively collaboratively with me on this critical issue I appreciate the chairs leadership and strong advocacy for the rural communities that she represents. I also represent 11 very rural and very under-resourced counties. Every year we ask our local governments to do more with less. These demands are especially challenging for my district due to decades of urban focused state policies and restrictions. My district has steadily lost our timber and mining industries, closed mills, and consolidated agricultural operations. Rural areas in California are losing residents at twice the rate of urban areas driven by a lack of educational and economic opportunity between a dwindling tax base and reduced support from the state many of my counties are struggling to stay afloat it is not uncommon for a county employee to be doing multiple jobs at once just to keep the lights on and serve their residents but before before being elected to the assembly I was responsible for school safety and preparedness and Modoc County wrote grants for the entire county and led many other county efforts until these industries thrive again in my district my rural counties will continue to work harder and smarter to do more with less. County recorders are just one of many examples of this. They usually wear many hats while providing recording services. Recording is a fee-for-service operation, meaning that they rely on fees that they change to provide this basic service to residents. These include documents for mortgages, easements, powers of attorney, deeds of trust, and vital records such as birth, death, and marriage certificates. The state has recently encouraged counties to offer electronic recording services requiring a fundamental shift in how these services are delivered Urban counties that have implemented this have reported significant increases in efficiency cost saving and enhanced security and improved real estate fraud prevention However, this transition is not cheap. Many rural counties, including mine, Alpine, Amador, Lassen, Sierra, and Siskiyou, to name a few, do not have the resources to establish electronic recording systems. Today, 34 of the 58 county recorders across the state are relying on their county's general fund to provide recording services, clear evidence that existing fees do reflect actual costs. In fact, recording fees have not been increased by the legislature since 2009, despite providing recording services at one of the lowest and efficient prices for Californians compared to the rest of the nation. AB 2224 modernizes recording by requiring counties to implement a more straightforward fee structure for Californians while helping recorders recoup the true cost of providing services. This bill is similar to AB 1430 authored by Assemblymember Bennett last year, which was vetoed by the governor. The bill before you represents a direct response to the governor's veto message, which encouraged the legislature to deliver recording services at a lower cost, faster, and with better customer service. AB 2224 achieves this goal. The findings and declarations in this bill make it clear that the legislature's intent with this bill is to advance a more transparent, efficient, and technologically consistent recording system that better serves the public and California's real estate economy. While the base recording fee is increased under this bill, several other fees are eliminated compared to the AB 1430, including fees for documents with incorrect spacing, nonstandard dimensions and references and indexing. This bill also requires counties to use the fee revenue that they receive to implement electronic recording, delivering on the governor's message to transform recording services. AB 2224 ensures that their core government service is more accessible efficient and secure for all Californians while saving taxpayers dollars I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm joined today by Rob Groskaw Gross Glosser and Larissa is not here today from the County Recorders Association of California taking over for the vice chair and you have two minutes to address the committee on the bill thank you sir and And members of the committee rob gross-glosser on behalf of the county recorders Association of California The summer member stated things very well, so I'll keep it short But we appreciate everyone's efforts to respond to the governor's veto message of last year appreciate all the stakeholders Including the Attorney General's office Department of Justice as with our expansion electronic recording in that requirement We had to consult with them and make sure that things were appropriate They're happy to answer any questions, but appreciate your support today. Thank you. Thank you very much Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2224? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning. Michelle Balcava with Nielsen Merksemer, and I'm here supporting the bill on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Thank you. Good morning. Julissa Cajar-Cardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, Urban Counties of California, and Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Marcus Cedra on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2224? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill Are there any opposition witnesses present Seeing no one come forward I bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or motion Okay moved by center Cervantes I turn it back over you to close thank you for hearing the bill today I respectfully ask for an aye vote okay thank you very much you have a motion by Senator Cervantes if we can please call the roll the motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations and our Zorazo Choi Arrigin I mean I Ashby Cervantes Cervantes I Lair C R to 2-0 Keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. I don't see Assemblymember Johnson here so that the sergeants can call her office. But we do. Oh, Cierre is on his way. Okay, never mind. Sounds like a member is going to be presenting on behalf of the Assemblymember. So we'll wait for him to come. Did we get a motion on consent? Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Okay, moved by Senator Cervantes. Consent is one item, AB 2640 Hadwick. We can please call the roll. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Senator Cerrato, Choi, Areguin. Aye. Areguin, aye. Ashby, Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Cigarto, 2-0. Okay, thank you. And I think there were some bills that were presented, but there were no motions, correct? So I don't believe there was a motion on file item 1 AB 748, Jairabedian. All motion. Okay, moved by Senator Cerrato, if we can please call the roll on that item. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. Senator Cerrato. Choy, Arrigin Aye Arrigin, aye Ashby, Cervantes Aye Cervantes, aye Laird, Ciaro 2-0 Keep that on call Thank you And then file item 2 was also presented AB 1786, Harabedian Moved by Senator Cervantes If we can please call the roll on that item The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriation Senator Cervantes, aye Arrigin, aye Arrigin, aye Ashby, Cervantes Cervantes, aye Laird, Ciaro 2-0 Keep that bill on call Were there any other items? Let's do a motion on 4. AB 1679, Mark Gonzalez. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Cervantes, if we can please call the roll on that item. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Health. Senator Sturrazo, Choi, Arrigin. Aye. Arrigin, aye. Ashby, Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Sayarto, to zero. We'll keep that ball on call. Did we have a motion on Pacheco? Okay, 5, 6, AB, 17, 12, Pacheco needs a motion. Aye, motion. Okay, moved by Senator Cervantes. If we can please call the roll on that item. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Zorazo, Choi, Arrigin. Aye. Arrigin, aye. Ashby, Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird, Ciaro, 2-0. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. I think that's everything, right? Okay, so we'll recess the committee while we wait for Senator Ciaro. We'll reconvene and let me lift the call on bills so Senator Cervantes can record her votes. Item number 8. Okay, let's go to item number 8, AB 1914, Shavo. This file item number 8, AB 1914, Sharma. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Human Services. The current vote is 2-0. Senator Cervaso, Ashby, Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Lair, Sayarto, 3-0. Okay, we'll keep that on call. Is there anything else? Okay, we'll now reassess the committee. Sure, why not? I don't need a position. No, they're just repetitive. Okay, Senator Ciardo, you will be presenting today on AB 2110 on behalf of Assemblymember Johnson. Go ahead. Excellent, thank you, and I think I do have a couple of witnesses. Okay, you're hoping you do, right? Oh, look, they're flanking me today. Okay, very good. Anyway, good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm here to present AB 2110, the Workforce Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Act, on behalf of Assemblywoman Johnson. AB 2110 provides local governments with the authority to establish a Workforce Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District for the purpose of creating workforce housing for education, manufacturing, health care, and public safety personnel. As every member of this committee is aware, California is facing a housing crisis that is pricing our constituents out of homes across the state. AB 2110 tackles this by creating workforce housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts, a new subtype of enhanced infrastructure financing district designed specifically to address workforce housing development. To make sure this housing actually reaches the workforce, AB 2110 gives local governments two flexible options for how a project can be structured. Under the first option, a project can reserve at least 80 percent of its units specifically for public safety, education, health care, or manufacturing workers. Under the second option, a project can focus entirely on affordability, ensuring 70 percent of the units serve lower-income professionals, and the remaining 30 percent serve moderate-income tiers. Being built upon the existing EIFD statute, AB 2110 will not touch or take a single penny from our school districts or the ERAF fund. It empowers our local communities to invest in their own human infrastructure without needing state grants and without imposing new tax burdens on residents. By allowing workers to live closer to their jobs, we can cut down on long commutes and ensure the people who make our communities run can actually afford to live in them. With me today to testify is Gina Gonzalez, who is the Director of Economic and Legislative Affairs with the city of Lake Elsinore, and Dylan Davis, he's the Legislative Director with Assemblywoman Johnson's office to answer technical questions. So this bill has no opposition to receive unanimous bipartisan support. and through the Assembly, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Who wants to go first? I will go first. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Again, my name is Gina Gonzalez. I'm the Director of Economic Development and Legislative Affairs, and previously I was in urban planning and also a cardiac nurse. How do you like that one? I would like to thank Assemblywoman Johnson for partnering with us to champion AB 2110. When you work in local economic development, your main goal every day is to build a strong, vibrant community. But right now, we're on the ground, and I know you can't tell, but I'm hitting the wall. The very people who keep our cities running, our teachers, our police officers, our health care workers, and our manufacturers, are being completely priced out of neighborhoods that they serve. In fact, we can attest where there's 1.9 million people leaving California, who's left is our critical care workers that are leaving our state right now the very people who are keeping our cities running when we look to traditional affordable housing programs they absolutely vital but they primarily focused on lower income limits our everyday working professionals find themselves stuck because they simultaneously earn a bit too much to qualify for standard housing subsidies but they don't earn nearly enough to afford a home near their jobs as local officials our hands are often tied and we want to innovate but we simply lack the specific tools to bridge this workforce housing shortage This is exactly why we brought this idea to Assemblywoman Johnson. AB 2110 gives us a tool designed specifically to help our workforce housing issue. AB 2110 doesn't require state grants. It doesn't raise a single cent of new taxes on our residents. It simply lets us be responsible, reinvesting our own local future property tax growth while strictly protecting our schools and our local education funding. This bill is a common sense, fiscally sound way to keep our essential workforce local and down-crushing our commute times and keeping our local economies running smoothly. On behalf of the City of Lake Elsinore, thank you for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Just for questions. Okay. Anyone else in support of AB 2110, please come up. No? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2110? Seeing none. Questions or comments from our members? Anybody? Okay, moved by Senator Choi. Okay. You can close up. I simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right, vote. The motions do pass to the Committee on Housing. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arreguin? Aye. Aye. Ashby. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird. Sayarto. Aye. Sayarto, aye. 5-0. Thank you for your support. The bill's on call. Thank you very much. We're now moving on to item 11, AB 2568. Senator Sayarto. All right, good morning again. I'm here on behalf of Assemblywoman Johnson to present AB 2568, which addresses an outdated statutory cap on compensation for those serving on our state's water district boards. Under current law, which was largely established in 1989, members of the governing boards of water districts are generally capped at receiving compensation of no more than 10 days in any calendar month. AB 2568 provides permissive authority for these districts to include that monthly cap to 15 days, ensuring that directors are fairly compensated for the actual time required to manage today's complex water systems. The reality is that modern water governance requires far more than just one or two board meetings a month. Because of the current 10-day limit, many board members, particularly in active districts like the bill's sponsor, West Valley Water District, frequently reach their compensation cap by the middle of the month. When this happens, board members are effectively forced to perform essential oversight and governance duties without any compensation for their time. AB 2568 addresses this problem with a modest and balanced way. It is worth noting that this is not an unprecedented change. The legislature already granted 15-day compensation authority to the Santa Clara Valley Water District in recognition of its complex operations. With me to testify in support of the bill today is Greg Young, who is the director of the West Valley Water District and the bill's sponsor, and also Amber Rosso with the Association of California Water Agencies. AB 2568 is a common sense modernization of the water code supported by Association of California Water Agencies and the California Special Districts Association I received unanimous well she received it received unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly and I respectfully ask for I vote thank you very much you can proceed you have maximum two minutes yes I will try to make it very short and brief yeah well good good morning madam chair and committee members my name is Greg young and I serve on the West Valley Water district board of directors we are grateful to assemblywoman assembly member Johnson and the committee for their work with us on this bill as mentioned a B2568 is this is a simple but important modernization of the water code it addresses an outdated cap in the state statute that limits water board members to be compensated for just 10 meeting days per month a standard that was again set in the 1980s and is no longer reflects the realities of governing a modern water agency today water district directors are responsible for attending numerous meetings and community events to ensure transparent government governance and a safe reliable water supply beyond monthly board meetings we regularly participate in special committees regional partnerships interagency coordination and industry engagements these responsibilities are essential to ensuring safe reliable and affordable water service but they often push us beyond the the 10-day cap leaving critical governance work uncompensate at the same time water districts are navigating increasingly complex challenges from drought and groundwater sustainability to emergency response and and an ever-evolving regulatory requirements these issues demand more time more coordination and more active board oversight than ever before a recent UC Davis study revealed a lack of diversity on water boards by increasing the number of days for which board members may be compensated these boards are likely to attract a more diverse set of candidates to reflect a broader representation in the community AB 25 68 brings the statute in line with today's government governance demands ensuring that water districts can function effectively and that board service remains accessible to a broader range of Californians increasing the statutory cap from 10 to 15 days yeah I'm just last section sorry would allow us to to do that and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have and respectfully request your support. Good morning. I think we have a few more minutes before it's good afternoon. My name is Amber Rosso. I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. AB 2568 acknowledges the reality of the expanding responsibilities, as Director Young has just mentioned, and recognizes the important role board members play in making complex day-to-day decisions related to water system management and resources to ensure water reliability across communities, across the state. So we respectfully request your support today. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone in support of AB2568? I want to speak. Nobody in support. Anyone in opposition to AB2568? Say none. Bring it to the dais. Any questions or comments? My colleagues? Seeing none would you like to wrap up I respectfully ask for an aye vote please Thank please Can I have a vote I mean a motion please Motion Senator Choi The motion is due passed to the Senate floor. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Arragin? Aye. Arragin, aye. Ashby? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. 5-0. This bill is on call, 5-0. Thank you, Senator Sayardo and witnesses. We're now going to go back and lift the call. Go ahead. Starting with file item number one, AB 748. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 2-0. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Ashby? Laird? Sayardo? No. Sayardo, no. 3-2. The bill is on call. 3-2. File item number 2, AB 1786. The mission is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-0. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Ashby, Laird, Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. 5-0. The vote is 5-0. On call. On call. File item number 3, AB 1578. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Governmental Organizations. The current vote is 3-1. Senator Ashby, Laird, Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. 3-2. On call. The vote is 3-2. The bill is on call. File item number 4, AB 1679. The motion is due passed to the committee on health the current vote is 2-0 Senators Durazo Durazo I Troy Troy no Ashby Laird say our toe to your toe no three to What is three to an uncle? File item number five a B 1693 the motion is due passed to the committee on business professions and economic development the current vote is four zero Ashby layer say our two Say our toe I 5-0 what is 5-0 on call? File item number six the a B 1712 the motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations the current vote is 2-0 centers Durazo Durazo I joy Troy I Ashby layered say our toe say our toe I 5-0 what is 5-0? zero bills on call file item number seven a B 1738 the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Housing the current vote is three zero centers Choi Ashby Laird say our toe say our toe no three one the bill is on call file item number eight a B 19 14 the motion is due passed to the Committee on Human Services the current vote is 3-0 Senator Durazo aye. Durazo aye. Ashby, Laird, Sayarto. No. Sayarto no. 4-1. It was on call. 4-1. File item number 9, AB 1997 the motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Housing. Senator Durazo aye. Durazo aye. Ashby, Laird, Sayarto. No. Sayarto no. 4-1. file item number 10 a B 2110 the motion is Do pass to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 5-0. Oh, I'm sorry. We're just waiting for Senator Laird. Sorry. File item number 12, AB 2224. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-0. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Ashby? Laird? Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Five zero Bill is on call five zero file item Number 13 the consent calendar Which the motion is to adopt the consent calendar which consists of file item 13 a B 2640 Senator's the Rosal There's a I joy I Joy I Ashby Laird Sarah to Sarah to I five zero Yes. File item number 14, AB 2605. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 3-0. Senator Serrazzo? Aye. Serrazzo, aye. Ashby? Laird? Serra Toe? Aye. Serra Toe, aye. 5-0. It was on call. Okay. Thank you, everybody. I know. We will. Recess for Senator Laird. Thank you Thank you. Okay, we will resume this meeting. Lifting call starting with file item number 1, AB 1748. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. The current vote is 3-2. Senator Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 4-2. The bill is out. 4-2. File item number 2, AB 1786. The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 5-0, with the Chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 6-0. The bill is up. File item number 3, AB 1578. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Governmental Organization. The current vote is 3-2, with the Chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 4 The bill is out File item number 4 AB 1679 The motion is due passed to the Committee on Health The current vote is 3-2, with the chair voting aye. Senator Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 4-2. The vote is 4-2. The bill is out. File item number 5, AB 1693. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. This is as amended. The current vote is 5-0 With the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird, Laird, aye. 6-0 The bill is out. File item number 6 AB 1712. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 5-0 with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird, Laird, aye. 6-0 The bill is out File item number 7, AB 1738 The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Housing The current vote is 3-1 With the chair voting aye Senators Choi, Ashby, Laird Aye Laird, aye 4-1 The bill is out File item number 8, AB 1914 The motion is due pass to the Committee on Human Services The current vote is 4-1 with the chair voting aye centers Ashby Laird Laird I 5 1 5 1 file item number nine a B 1997 the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on housing the current vote is for one with the chair voting eyes and there's Ashby Laird Laird I 5 1 the vote is 5 1 the bill is out file item number 10 a B 21 10 the motion is due pass to the committee on housing the current vote is 5 0 centers Ashby Laird Laird I aye 6 The bill is out File item number 11 AB 2568 The motion is due. Pass to the Senate floor. The current vote is 5-0, with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 6-0. The bill is out. File item number 12, AB 2224. The motion is due. Pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 5-0, with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird? Laird, aye. 6-0. The bill is out. File item number 13, the consent calendar. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item number 13, AB 2640. Senators Ashby, Laird? I have an aye on the intention, Senator. 2640. Laird, aye. 6-0. The bill is out. File item 14, AB 2605. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 5-0, with the chair voting aye. Senators Ashby, Laird? Laird, aye. Thank you. 6-0. The bill is out. You're going to Labor still. Okay. I want to thank all the individuals who participated in today's public testimony. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee to visit or visit our website. Your comments are very important to us, and we want to include your testimony and the official hearing records. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to everyone who prepared and made this possible. Thanks for your patience and cooperation. The Senate Committee on Local Government is now adjourned. Thank you.