Appropriations — 2026-08-05 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Good morning everyone Welcome to the August 5th, 2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 325 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. We encourage the public to provide a written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment. It may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch on the live stream. We will accept any public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name organization and position on the bill unless i say otherwise the committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total when you came into the room you saw the rules we expect everyone to be polite and cordial and you violate these rules we have the authority to remove you from the hearing today okay let's establish a quorum. Wicks. Here. Wicks present. Hoover. Here. Hoover present. Arrumbula. Calderon. Coloza. Coloza present. Dixon. Dixon present. Fong. Here. Fong present. Mark Gonzalez. Mark Gonzalez present Carell Pacheco Pellerin Pellerin present Sharp Collins Solache Solache present Tar Tar present Tangipa Tangipa present Great, we have a quorum And I want to now dispense with the consent calendar We will take the bills up The consent calendar in two motions The first is due pass to consent applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this committee and are eligible for the assembly floor consent calendar consistent with assembly rules. We have a motion on this. The motion is second, Madam Secretary. Following our Senate bills, consent calendar. 892 Grove, 902 Grayson, 990 Grove, 994 Cobaldon, 1008 Ochoa Bogue, 1017 Reyes, 1100 Smallwood Cravers, 1168 McNerney, 1188 Ochuleta, 1206 Committee on Insurance, 1207 Laird, 1253 Laird, 1316 Smallwood Cravers, 1324 Blakespeare, 1381 Cervantes, 1389 Daliv, 1405 Smallwood Cravers, 1410 Limon, 1420 Richardson, 1427 Committee on Public Safety, 1431 Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, 1432 Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, 1436 Committee on Revenue and Taxation, 1444 Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement, 1445 Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development, and 1447 Committee on Health. Those are out on a roll call. The second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in the committee but are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with the rules. Do we have a motion on this? We have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary. Following our Senate bills, consent calendar. Part 2, motions do pass. 99, Blakespeare. 299, Cobaldon. 331, Menjava. 479, Erraguin. 505, Richardson. 546, Grayson. 561, Blakespeare. 692, Erraguin. 849, Weber Pearson. 917, Laird. 950, Weber Pearson. 965, Blakespeare. 993, Ochoa Boog. 1003, Grayson. 1048, Becker. 1072 Commission on Housing, 1085 Dorazzo, 1116 Caballero, 1148 Nilo, 1153 Caballero, 1195 Rubio, 1218 Aragon, 1228 Rubio, 1311 Wahab, 1375 Cortese, 1398 Rubio, SB 958 Weber Pearson, do pass as amended. Yes, SB 958 Weber Pearson do pass as amended to add a shadow to the list of building height-related impacts that CEQA cannot treat as significant environmental impacts. And SB 1261 lead do pass as amended. That's do pass as amended to add an urgency clause. Great. Those are out on an A-roll call. And with that, we have Senator Weber Pearson up to present SB 999. And you can begin when you're ready, Senator.

And here in support is Christine Smith from Access Health.

Do we have additional folks in the room who wish to express support? Do we have any formal opposition? Any additional opposition? We will bring it back to committee. Any questions? No. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. That is out on our – thank you very much. That is out on our A-roll call with Ms. Dixon not voting and Mr. Hoover voting no.

Thank you. And you can begin.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room that wish to express support?

Great. Any witnesses in opposition?

Any other folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, let's bring it back to committee. Any questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion in a second. Okay Would you like to close And I would also just ask you to respond to the opposition as well Thank you Really appreciate the ability to present this bill today

Appreciate that. I appreciate what you're doing here. I think having more information on sugary drinks is critical for a host of reasons that were expressed. Also, we'd love for you to continue to work with the opposition just on this sort of implementation of how you actually make it a reality, make it useful. So just appreciate your leadership here. And with that, the bill is out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Dixon and Mr. Tangapa voting no. Thank you. And with that, we have Mr. Laird up next. You have three bills before us, I believe, SB 952, 931, and 1288. And you can begin when ready, and I'll let you pick your poison, which one you want to do first.

We love your bills, Mr. Laird.

Okay. Anyone in the room wish to express support?

Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?

Sorry. Did someone have a question? No, I just wanted to make a comment. Senator, I know how hard you've been working on this issue, and I just want to thank you for all your work on this. I know it's so important for California consumers to be able to have this move forward, so I just wanted to acknowledge that. Thank you. Thank you. That is out on a B-roll call with Mr. Hoover and Ms. Sharp-Collins not voting. Thank you. and whichever bill you'd like to present next.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? No. We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?

Great. And that's SB 952, and that's out on a roll call. And your last bill, SB 1288.

You can be – oh, did you want to say anything?

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wish to express support?

Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition?

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for committee? Nope. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close?

Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Laird. That is out with Republicans not voting with Mr. Hoover voting no and mystics and voting I. OK. Mr. Allen, you're next. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Sorry. Mr. Grayson's ahead of you. He was sitting over there in, like, the peanut gallery. I did not. Oh, and sorry. Mr. Ozzo, you're here. Come on up. Sorry, Mr. Allen. Two false alarms there Mr Ozit you are presenting SB 1371 Turn your mic on, please.

Madam Chair, members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California, the proud sponsors of SB 1371. I'll be brief and just say that these provisions, when they include labor disputes, tend to actually prolong strikes because cities lose their ability to enforce liquidated damages or penalties that they would otherwise use to bring waste haulers back to the table. and stay true to their service obligations. So with that, this bill creates fair rules that benefits the public, workers, and local governments. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Ask for aye vote. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within 30 days of submission of preliminary application Provide a good-faith estimate and list of any on-site off-site improvements This bill has no state cost and with me to testify is Raymond Contreras representing Spur and California Yimby

Great. Any other folks in the room wish to express support?

Thank you. Any other folks in support? Okay, any opposition? We'll bring it back to committee Any questions? We have a motion and a second And a second, okay, would you like to close?

Appreciate your leadership in all things housing, Senator Grayson And with that, that's out on an A-roll call With Ms. Dixon not voting And we have Ms Ashby up Sorry Mr Allen And you're presenting SB1283.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support?

Thank you. Great. Any opposition, formal or otherwise? We'll bring it back to the committee Questions? We have a motion and a second Would you like to close?

Thank you, that is out with Republicans not voting With Ms. Dixon voting no and Mr. Hoover voting aye And with that we have Mr. Allen finally up Yes And you are presenting SB 1209

1209-1244

Oh, right. Let's do yours, too, first. Okay, great. And you can pick which one you'd like.

Great. Anyone wish to express support? Any opposition? We will bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I want to appreciate our insurance chair for the work we did on this bill. Great. Thank you. That's out on a B-roll call with Mr. Hoover voting aye and Mr. Ta voting no. Sorry, Mr. Ta not voting. I apologize, Mr. Ta not voting. And with that, SB 1244.

Can you turn the mic on, please? Thank you.

Any opposition?

Consumers absolutely deserve to understand how health care dollars are spent, and our members support clear, meaningful disclosure, which is why we would support this bill if it was mirrored to align with ERISA standards. But transparency does need to be actionable, accurate, and aligned with where costs are generated. Health insurance premiums are rising due to underlying health care costs, hospital pricing, pharmaceutical spending, and utilization trends. Independent agents and brokers do not set premiums, do not control claims costs, and do not negotiate provider pricing. They serve as advocates for their clients, including public agencies and their employees, helping them navigate complex options, control costs where possible, and resolve utilization issues when they arise. This bill has drafted places the burden of significantly expanded disclosure on agents and brokers, even though much of the required data is held by carriers and vendors. This creates a system where those without control of the data are held responsible for reporting it. That misalignment does not improve transparency. It risks confusion, incomplete information, and reduces access to experienced advisors. If the goal is to reduce costs for purchasers, policy should remain focused on the drivers of healthcare spending while ensuring that transparency requirements are placed on the entities that generate and control the data. We do believe there is a path forward that acknowledges and advances transparency and protects consumers and maintains access to knowledgeable, community-based professionals. But we ask for those amendments to address compliance challenges by conforming the language with ERISA to align industry reporting, reduce duplicative reporting, and ease administrative burdens, ultimately controlling costs in advancing the objective of the bill. Thank you for your time and consideration. Madam Chair. Madam Chair and members, John Norwood on behalf of the independent insurance agents and brokers of California. Our clients support transparency, but this bill, we believe, creates an unworkable mandate that will harm the very public agencies it seeks to protect by reducing competition and making it easier for those entities that remain to increase prices. The most important factor in an insurance transaction is the price that the client pays and the performance of the entity providing the services. The individual factors that make up that price aren't really significant in that there's a variety of different sales mechanisms in the insurance business, and those price factors within those differ widely, but in the end, the price is just about the same. Our clients represent or sell about 80% of the commercial insurance in California. I don know of a single situation where they have been resistant to disclosure of compensation when requested by the client Federal law may not apply to public entities but I don know any situation where public agencies don require disclosure as a part of the bid process That's what's kind of interesting about this bill. In our opinion, though, this bill creates an impossible standard requiring disclosure of compensation received by affiliates, subcontractors, or related parties, creating legal responsibility on the broker for information that may not be accessible to them, may be proprietary to third parties. The result, in our opinion, is that brokers will exit the public entity market because the risk of compliance is too high. Instead, they will just basically choose to serve private sector clients where the federal CAA rules are clear, established, and manageable. Smaller and rural public agencies will probably be hit the hardest because they're the ones that rely on local agents and brokers to provide these products. And I think that the local agents will not be able to comply with this bill. For all those reasons, we're opposed to this bill unless it's aligned with the federal regulations on this topic. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Good morning. Sherry McHugh representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and speaking on behalf of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from committee? Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second? Second. Would you like to close Mr. Allen?

That is out with Republicans not voting. Thank you. And with that, you are presenting Mr. Stern's bill next, I believe. SB 1359. Yep. You can begin when you're ready. All right. Great. So this is the Natural Gas Ratepayer Protection Act. I should name my bills. That's exciting. Okay, so for the past six years, the Public Utilities Commission has been taking a close look at the long-term future of our state's gas infrastructure. Steps the PUC has already taken, including mandating that any time our gas utilities make investments over $75 million, they must assess the alternatives, including electrification and non-pipeline alternatives. SB 1359 takes the next step in applying similar fiscal discipline to gas distribution infrastructure projects and ensuring more transparency in the general rate case proceeding. This is important because California's gas utilities are on track to replace 8,900 miles of gas distribution mains by 2045 at a projected total cost of $43 billion. This bill requires gas utilities to submit an annual report to describe expenditures associated with gas distribution infrastructure replacement and upgrades, and then empowers the PUC to further consider whether cost-effective electrification alternatives or non-pipeline alternatives could reasonably avoid or reduce the project. The PUC can then use their existing authority on rate recovery on these gas distribution infrastructure replacements and upgrades. So this bill prioritizes affordability by ensuring the PUC has access to adequate data to inform responsible gas ratepayer investments. It would require the PUC to evaluate depreciation schedules for gas distribution infrastructure and whether the schedule appropriately reflects projected reductions in gas demand and considers alternative depreciation methodologies to minimize ratepayer exposure. Updated depreciation schedules will guarantee that state regulators have the best available information necessary for protecting ratepayers from exposure to future stranded asset costs without posing an undue burden on utilities or preventing their ability to serve Californians. The bill does not ban or prohibit natural gas upgrades, maintenance, nor does it delay or prohibit safety-related repairs or emergency investments. And respectfully, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, they were walking in front of me. Hello, good morning. Valerie Torella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. We have an opposed unless amended position on this bill and just wanted to say that the conversations with the author to remove our opposition are very robust and we feel confident that we can get to neutrality. Thank you. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the counties of Fresno and Kern, both in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. We also have Department of Finance here. Would you like to add anything? Thank you, Madam Chair. Millie Yan with Department of Finance. We have no file on this bill. Okay. Thank you. And any questions? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Okay. That is, would you like to close? Respect for guys in Iowa. That is out on a b-roll call with miss Pacheco and miss Sharpe Collins not voting Okay, thank you members. Thank you. Sorry. Actually that is actually on call. I apologize. Oh We're waiting for some more folks to come to committee Okay, mr. Allen great good job. Thank you. Okay Let's see we've mr. Weiner here and I believe you have two bills SB 677 and SB 908 Feel free to pick which one you want to start with Thank you. You can be given already. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I'm here to present Senate Bill 677 to help California continue to efficiently build more homes in the face of our state's housing crisis. The legislature has worked hard to cut red tape, streamline housing approvals, and fund more affordable housing construction. However, project opponents continue to find new and creative ways to delay new housing, including the two issues addressed in this bill by appealing parcel maps and by failing to provide approvals for federally required approvals for bond issuance for affordable housing. We've seen this in San Francisco, for example, where your projects that are fully approved have their permits and they need a parcel map. And because California lets anyone for any reason appeal a parcel map, they get appealed. It causes confusion. No one really understands why the appeal is happening. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything about the housing project, but it ends up causing a delay. So this bill will eliminate those appeals in urban areas. There will still be appeals allowed if an elected official sponsors the appeal, so it won't foreclose it entirely, but it will not allow these abusive appeals that we've seen. The bill also... so addresses situations where there's an affordable housing project and you have tax-exempt bond issuance. And under federal law, you have to have an approval of that bond issuance that the city council typically provides. We have seen situations where a city council will just not agendize it, fail to act. And so it will delay or potentially even kill the project. The bill will, SB 677, will authorize the state treasurer to enter into a joint powers authority to issue these tax-exempt private activity bonds for purpose of the federally required TEFRA approval. So it's very technical stuff, but these are two areas where I think we can improve the process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me today is John Lovell, Senior Project Developer with Mission Housing Development Corporation. You could turn on your mic. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you to Senator Scott Wiener for supporting this bill and inviting me here to speak to you all this morning. Mission Housing had to deal with the frivolous appeal of a subdivision map of one of our new construction projects last year. Our development dubbed the Marvel and the Mission by the community is a culmination of years of grassroots community organizing to bring almost 400 units of affordable housing to a large infill site next to the 16th and Mission BART station in San Francisco. The Marvel enjoyed widespread support as it received its land use and environmental review approvals last year. However, I have to admit that everyone was caught off guard when a small handful of neighbors submitted an appeal to the subdivision map for the project. The stated reasons in the appeal had nothing to do with the map itself and everything to do with the usual reasons we're used to hearing about why people don't want affordable housing built in their neighborhood, particularly in this case for the permanent supportive housing that the project would provide for 136 formerly homeless individuals. Well, I'm pleased to be able to say that this appeal was unanimously rejected, and we were able to start construction on the Marville earlier this year. Despite this victory, beating the subdivision appeal still came at a cost, mainly in legal fees for our land use attorney, as well as staff time at my agency as well as the public agencies involved in processing the appeal. There's been a lot of discussion in this legislature lately about how expensive it is to build affordable housing in the state and how that's largely a product of the complicated approval processes that projects have to navigate, which are filled with choke points that can be easily weaponized. For that reason, I believe that this project will have a positive impact on the state budget because it will make it less expensive to build affordable housing. For that reason, I respectfully request an I vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Plana Carvajal on behalf of California IMB, a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you so much. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, and Spur and Strong Support. Thank you. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Wiener? We respectfully ask for an aye vote. Appreciate your perseverance on this and everything else, as well as yours, to continue to push for more housing. And with that that bill is out on an A call with Ms Dixon voting No Thank you And SB908 Thank you Madam Chair Colleagues SB908 which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support streamlines the current process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements and restricts the ability of cities and HOAs to add costly additional requirements beyond those needed to meet energy efficiency standard. Basically, people want to replace their windows with more energy-efficient windows, replace drafty windows with windows that will lower their energy bills in an era when our energy bills are way too high. And all too often, we see sometimes cities, sometimes HOAs say, no, you have to keep your old drafty windows or you have to have a replica window replacement that is dramatically more expensive for people. So this bill will put a stop to that and allow people to choose their windows based on energy efficiency standards. The bill does have exemptions for landmarked buildings, but this is a good way for people to be able to lower their cost of living. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. and I'm also joining by Mr. Lovell. Thank you again. Even with all the important work that this legislature has done to make it easier to approve new housing in California, one consistent area where we still run into challenges is with arbitrary and subjective restrictions on what kind of windows can be put in buildings. Besides new buildings we've built over the past 10 years at Mission Housing, some of our proudest accomplishments have involved the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing stock, either that Mission Housing built in the 70s and the 80s or that the Public Housing Authority in San Francisco built in the same time period. Unfortunately, instances of what should be straightforward window replacements can still get tied up in red tape with arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions on what kind of materials we're allowed to use for replacing windows, particularly the framing. Often it seems as if the point of these rules is to treat a building built within the lifetime of many of us in this room as if it carries the same historical weight as a Victorian that survived the 1906 earthquake. that to me makes no sense this is a consistent challenge with new construction as well as recently as 2024 the city approved what it calls objective design standards which outright prohibit vinyl frame windows on any parts of a new building that can be seen for a public right-of-way despite this vinyl windows are substantially less expensive than their aluminum counterparts they're also superior heat insulators which lead to long-term savings and energy costs and for one of our new one of our new construction projects we were only able to get vinyl frame windows approved by invoking one of the five cost-saving measures that were allowed under the state density bonus program all this change added up to over six figures in cost savings to the project it shouldn't take a density boat bonus waiver to do this it should just take some common sense reliability is also a key concern over the past decade supply chains in the building industry have been rocked by disruptions the pandemic and ongoing volatility in global trade policy I've even had a project with locally sourced aluminum windows here in northern california that was delayed because of pg e power shutoffs and wildfires and projects like in situations like this the ability to be flexible and pivot to another supplier or product type without having our hands tied by arbitrary aesthetic preferences of a public agency can make a big difference on whether a project is delivered on time and on budget thank you and i respectfully request an eye vote thank you any additional folks in the room wish to express support clifton wilson on behalf of mayor daniel lurian support Thank you Madison VanderKlee with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support Great Any folks in opposition Okay we bring it back to committee Any questions? No. Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great. Thank you, Mr. Wiener. The SB 908 is out on an A roll call with Ms. Dixon voting no. Ms. Rubio, you are up next. You are presenting SB 1323. And you can begin when you're ready. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, members. of this committee and chairwoman. Thank you for this opportunity to present here before you. At its core, SB 1323 is about ensuring humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in medical settings. Reports indicate that some individuals in ICE custody have been denied communication with their loved ones, delays in care and worsening medical conditions, and in very extreme cases, preventable deaths. SB 1323 requires healthcare entities to inform staff and volunteers how to respond to requests from individuals in immigration custody and allow patients to notify an emergency contact of their location and condition. SB 1323 has a minimal fiscal impact. The committee analysis identifies only potential minor costs associated with staff education, updating existing procedures, and posting required signage. There are one-time limited administrative activities, not an ongoing programmatic cost. Most health care facilities already have visitor policies in place and staff training as well. SB 1323 builds on existing operational procedures rather than creating an entirely new compliance framework. Facilities can incorporate these requirements into existing trainings and policy updates. The California Department of Health anticipates no state administrative costs, so CDPH has concluded that implementation does not require additional state resources, demonstrating that this bill does not create a new regulatory burden. The bill promotes consistency and reduces uncertainty, especially during very stressful times. Clear procedures for responding to immigration enforcement will help staff understand the responsibilities before it occurs. SB 1323 is narrowly tailored. It does not prohibit compliance with state or federal law. And this bill simply establishes clear operational procedures and notice requirements while recognizing valid judicial warrants and respecting court orders. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Madam Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of American College Emergency Physicians in support. Any folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee any questions Motion and a second great. Would you like to close? Absolutely just thank you for your time from a fiscal perspective SB 1323 is very modest. It's practical The costs are limited to routine administrative updates Staff education and signage CDPH anticipates no cost and any potential local reimbursement is expected to be very minor and it critically important to ensure that people are treated with respect And with that, thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Rubio. That is out on a B-roll call with Mr. Hoover not voting. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Menjivar, please step up to the plate. Okay, you have two bills, I believe, SB 938 and SB 1272. And I will be also presenting for Senator Cervantes afterwards. Great. You can begin on whichever you prefer. I'll begin with my bill on SB 938. Great. Assemblymember colleagues, we've all seen in this past year, year and a half, various communities have had federal agencies come in and detain at times warrantless, without provocation, literally for the shade of my color skin. And oftentimes we have seen a lot of them die. What we're seeing is that some of these federal immigration officers are getting 30 days of training because they were incentivized, giving a bonus, $30,000, $50,000 will pay your student loans if you come and play pretend that you're law enforcement. But when you compare it to the training that our law enforcement agencies get here in California, it's no comparison. I am proud of many of our police officers here in California who take their job very seriously. But what is happening is those federal agents currently right now are able to, after getting 30 days of training, being just incentivized to wear a gun and a badge and terrorize people, apply for our local law enforcement agencies and get a waiver to not go through our training. Just simply do a lateral move into our local law enforcement agencies who have worked so hard to build trust with our community members. What SB 938 is doing after being drastically amended to make sure that even after amendment, making sure that we are doing something that is within our purview and has caused the may the chief police association go from opposition to neutral is to say that if anyone wants to be a local law enforcement officer who was a federal immigration officer, you cannot apply for a waiver to bypass our hundreds of hours of additional training that is required to be a local law enforcement officer. So SB 938 is saying is you want to be work LAPD, San Francisco PD, Fresno PD, then you're going to have to take the post required training and you no longer will be required. You will no longer be eligible to request a waiver. With that, I my witness could no longer make it. So, Madam Chair, if I could read just some of that. MALDEF is proudly in support of SB 938, which is an important bill on police training standards. It recognizes a simple point. Training and experience as a federal immigration enforcement officer is not necessarily equivalent to experience as a California peace officer performing general law enforcement duties. Federal immigration officers are operating under different legal authority. California peace officers must be trained in California law and post standards, including a long list of training protocols. protocols. These requirements are central to maintaining public safety and community trust. This is well within California's authority, and we have a responsibility to determine who may exercise the privilege to be a California peace officer. Respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you. And do you accept amendments? Yes. Yes. Great. Okay. Folks in the room wish to express support. Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay. DOF. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Although this bill does not result in costs for the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, it may result in a state reimbursable mandate because local agencies may incur costs associated with requiring additional clarification of previous employment and covering costs for more potential peace officer hires undergoing the regular basic course. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion, a second. Just briefly, Madam Chair, I just want to thank the author for bringing this to the conversation. My district has been really hit with the situation that we've been doing. their inhumane rates in our districts. And I think anything we could do to, one, support our law enforcement who definitely is equipped and trained to do the right thing, but also just take a closer look of how these untrained agents are coming to our communities and really terrorizing our communities. So I think just having those conversations are important, and I look forward to continuing to engage with them out there on how do we address those things. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author. I just want to echo the sentiments and the comments to my colleague, Mr. Solace, as most folks know, my area is downtown Los Angeles and surrounding communities has also been hit. This is a very common sense bill, and I want to just thank the author again for coming forward with this, and I'm proud to move this bill as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Would you like to close? Respectfully asking for an aye vote. Great. And that's out on a B roll call. And SB 1272. Yes, thank you. SB 1222 is a center of mengevars special. I am the sponsor of this bill. It's because I think there are certain things that homeowners are fined that should not be fined or not their fault. I bought my home five years ago, and within a couple years, I got a fine that I had to tear down my wall because it was in violation. The wall came with my house. I did not know it was in violation. and I was told that they tried to get the previous homeowner for seven years to fix the violation. And now that I moved in, it was my responsibility. I thought that it was completely unfair. They were giving me 30 days to find a construction crew, tear down my wall, make sure my dogs didn't run away, and build a whole brand new wall. And if I wanted an extension, that was another $400 just to ask for an extension on top of the already $400 they were fining me. So out the gate, it was $800. dollars well i called him i said well i'm a legislator let me try to fix this situation enter sb1222 that is saying that if this happens to a homeowner and there was unbeknownst to them that when they bought a home it came with a code violation that was not a health and safety risk that they after proving with affidavit and they showed that in their buyer's report or the selling documents, it did not say that the home had a code violation, that they would get six months to try to rectify the violation that is in a health and safety or at risk of hurting someone. If the homeowner needed more time, because it takes a long time to fix these situations, that they would be able to get another six months that after showing good faith that they were working on it without having to pay for another fee to get six more months to work on it Seems like a common sense Everything is so expensive Why are we punishing homeowners who did not know that they bought a house with a code violation that is not a danger to the community or going to hurt someone? Here to testify, Madam Chair, is my witness here to my right. Morning, Chair and Assemblymembers. My name is Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We are in support. We believe this bill provides a helpful solution for owners who want to do the right thing, and we respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you. Any additional folks in support wish to express that opinion? Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? You'll each have two minutes. Good morning again Chair and Members, Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1272. We understand Senator Menchever's bill comes from a frustrating personal experience and we appreciate her intent to protect other homeowners who inherit undisclosed violations. But we believe a disclosure problem is for real estate and consumer protection law, not a reason to delay code enforcement that's rooted in health and safety. As written, the bill isn't limited to the scenario that the senator described. Any owner of a one to four unit owner occupied property can unlock mandatory six month delays extendable up to a year or more by filing a sworn affidavit claiming that they didn't know of the violation and weren't aware of it. An owner with little incentive to fix a known problem could claim the exemption forcing agencies to review, can test or litigate each claim before enforcement can proceed. In our members' experience, knowledge and responsibility disputes are common, drawing agencies into costly proceedings before the underlying violation is even addressed. That drains public resources and can push cities towards lawsuits where administrative enforcement would otherwise be quicker and cheaper for the agency and the individual. Exactly the type of ongoing costs that your analysis flags as potentially significant. Non-emergency violations don't stay static. A problem that isn't dangerous today can become one during 6 to 12 months. Local agencies already have discretion to extend timelines for owners working in good faith. And what concerns us is losing the ability to act quickly against those who are simply using this process to stall. We've appreciated the amendments thus far and the open dialogue with the senator's office on a potentially narrower fix that protects blameless homeowners without inviting broader litigation, but we haven't yet struck that balance in this legislation. We remain respectfully opposed at this time, but very much appreciate the work with the senator. With me, I have Lee, who is a KCO board member, happy to answer any technical questions. She's a compliance expert. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Name, organization, and position, please. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association. Counties like to align our comments to those provided by KCO and also would like to register opposition for the rural county representatives of California. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of Bakersfield and respect all opposition. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the county board of supervisors for Solano. and just want to align ourselves with the other statewide county organizations. Thank you. Okay. Any questions from committee? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think I want to thank again the Senator for bringing this to the table Just like this is a special for her this is my jam as well As a former mayor of my city I dealt with a lot of the issues with the homeowners that bought a home and also dealing with the coal enforcement situation So I think there has to be a balanced approach. One of the things that I was a big proponent of is the pre-inspection reports. I think they're critical to transparency projects for the new homeowner, essentially for those that are buying homes. They know what they're walking into. and because then there's a whole, well, I didn't do that well or didn't do that. And I think to your point, Senator, you know, it's not fair that you bought this home and it's very frustrating. I could totally understand. So I definitely want to, you know, engage with you in this conversation further beyond this bill. But I think pre-inspection reports are definitely something that I protect both the new owner and also the cities because then they get to disclose what is wrong, if anything, with the property or what was done, you know, not with – unpermitted, essentially. So I think, again, just understand the frustration, and I will support this today, but I think, you know, the code enforcement, there's a responsibility for the cities to definitely comply and making sure that everything's up to par. So I think I'm happy to move this forward today, but I think we need to definitely address the pre-inspection reports. I'm not sure where that is at in this conversation, but, again, we'll engage you directly about this. I think it really, really protects the new homeowners. I know our chair is big on housing, and I think as we create more housing for more homeownership, it's a good thing as well. but ensuring that they're walking into a situation that makes sense for everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The question is, who enforces that? Was it the city or who was enforcing? Was it the state? I missed that point. The city was. Great. Do we have a motion in a second? Great. Would you like to close? Oh, and mic on. Yes. Sorry, I answered to you. With my cough. But yes, city enforcement. I appreciate the conversation. I do want to note there's nothing. There hasn't been a balanced truck because there's no language for me to review. There's been no amendments proposed. So we've taken the amendments. Rural counties proposed an amendment. We took in a local gov. I do want to clarify also that I introduced language addressing only single family homes, assembly, local, government, policy committee, increase that to four units or more. So that was not my doing whatsoever. So I just do want to note that we've taken amendments when amendments were proposed to us and nothing else has been proposed to us yet. With that, up to this point, we have felt that we've balanced, we've struck a balance of ensuring that there is protections and health and safety, but also ensuring that the city does not depend on homeowners to build their budgets just because they did not know that a validation came with their home that they just bought without respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you. And SB 1272 is out on an A-roll call with Ms. Dixon voting no and Mr. Tangapa not voting. And you are also presenting for Ms. Cervantes, correct? Yes. SB 1117. That is correct. You can begin when you're ready. On behalf of Senator Cervantes, thank you for allowing me to speak for her. SB 1117 will reduce barriers to ADU production by ensuring that local impact fees are calculated fairly and proportionally consistent with state housing policy. For many first-time and moderate-income homeowners, the ability to construct an ADU can increase long-term financial stability and provide intergenerational support. Existing law requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act Contrary to what we in the legislature have intended some local governments are calculating impact fee amounts based on the entire square footage of the ADU once it exceeds 750 square feet, rather than basing the fees only on the portion above that threshold. So this bill wants to clarify and strengthen the existing ADU law by ensuring local governments assess impact fees only on the portion of an ADU exceeding 750 square feet. This will apply only to the first two ADU units per lot. In jurisdictions where impact fees are more than $10 per square foot, the change can add more than $8,000 to project costs. Thank you, colleagues and the rest of the committee for your time and analysis on this bill. Madam Chair, I'd like to turn it over to the witness in support of this bill. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jordan Panana Carvajal. On behalf of California, you can be a proud sponsor of SB 1117. As the senator mentioned, this bill will save thousands of thousands of dollars for homeowners who want to build ADUs in their backyard. And also, we took an amendment in the recent policy committee that limits it to up to two ADUs only. And so we've made some progress through this bill, and we respectfully ask your support for SB 1117. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of Casita Coalition in support. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulate Planning and Policy in support. Thank you. Thank you. Any folks in opposition? You can begin when you're ready. Just turn the mic on, please. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. We represent local agencies that provide essential services that allow for housing growth to even be livable and feasible. and I speak in respectful opposition to SB 1117. This measure expands a policy that was created in 2019, which gave impact fee discounts to homeowners who were building a second home on their parcel. Not only did it cap it at 750 square feet, but it also has a proportionality test, meaning if there is to be an impact fee, it's in relation to the size of the primary unit. So if you had a 2,000-square-foot home and you had a 1,000-square-foot ADU, you would still be paying half the impact fees of a normal project. These impact fees are a significant resource to build the infrastructure that's necessary to even make housing growth possible. The mitigation fee act has strict boundaries on how the fees are set through a Nexus study. It has boundaries on how they're applied and how they can be spent only on infrastructure, not on ongoing costs like maintenance or staffing. This policy, both in 2019 and the follow-up here in SB 1117, violates the spirit of that Mitigation Fee Act where we use an actual study to determine the true costs of the impacts to the community by increasing density there. As was true seven years ago when we first spoke to this, it remains true that there is no provision to offset the resources that would normally go to providing the infrastructure to make the community, to offset the impacts to the community. and I submit that housing and infrastructure can't be separated it's one ecosystem the house in a vacuum not connected to the services to the parks and fire stations and fire trucks and police stations and such is not livable the special districts specifically are impacted by these policies often have limited revenue pathways and these types of fees are specifically dedicated just to servicing that increased growth and if you could wrap up thank you we do applaud any innovations or taking on the housing issue from multiple angles but it's asked that we remember that it exists in a broader ecosystem and with that respectful opposition thank you any oh sorry additional folks in opposition Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park districts the cities of Belmont Burbank Foster City Redwood City San Marcos Thousand Oaks and the Marin County Council mayors and council members all in respectful opposition Mark Newburgh California State Association of Counties registering opposition. Good morning, Madam Chair, with Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California. In a respectful opposed unless amended position, we have been working with the author's office on some information on the impacts that it could have long term on the fire service. Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, Mr. Gonzalez? I thank the substitute for the author and the author, and I'd like to co-author the bill and move the bill. Great. Any other questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? Great. And a second. Great. Would you like to close? What we're seeing right now is that about 75% of the ADUs being built right now are under the 750 square foot. So these cities are not getting these impact fees because most homeowners are choosing to not bring on those fees. What you could potentially see is an increase of more ADs being built that are above the 750 feet square foot if we do an impact fee that's proportioned to anything above the 750. So you can make a case here that cities are going to see more revenue coming in because you'll have homeowners now deciding that maybe it does make sense for their wallet or their bank account to build bigger. We're in a housing crisis. Anything that we can do to help homeowners afford their first home and pay for their mortgage there, it's going to go a long way and keep people housed respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you. And that is out on A-Roll call with Ms. Sharp Collins not voting and Mr. Tangapa not voting. Oh sorry you have two bills for Ms Cervantes I apologize Okay sorry SB 1367 SB 1367 on behalf of Senator Cervantes prohibits cities and counties from approving new land uses that would allow the construction of detention facilities or permit the conversion of existing buildings into such facilities The goal of this bill is to protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities, particularly those not designed for long-term human habitation. By doing so, SB 1364 will protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities. That's the same thing. The public already knows very little about what is happening inside private detention facilities, except for the trickle of horror stories about rancid food, medical neglect, severe overcrowding, especially in ICE detention facilities, as immigrants are moved across state lines, where at least 32 people have died in ICE custody since 2025 and 15 so far this year, one every six days. Yet SB 1365 treats all private entities operating detention facilities in California uniformly, regardless of whether they are used on behalf of a local state or the federal government. The bill defines detention facilities to mean any structure, whether temporary or permanent, operated by a private entity on behalf of a governmental entity for the temporary holding of persons charged with a criminal offense or detained for civil or administrative purposes. The detention facilities increase surveillance and enforcement in the neighborhoods around them. They lock states and localities into long-term detention, and they tie local communities to an industry built on Cajun people. They're not meant for humans to be there long-term, and we want to ensure that land-use policies are not used to facilitate human rights abuse. Respectfully asking for an Ivo. Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? Yes. Madam Chair, I would like to co-author this bill, and with that, I'll move the bill. Great. Do we have a second? Great. Any additional questions, comments? Would you like to close? Respect and ask for an aye vote. Great. That's out on a B-roll call. Thank you. Okay. And with that, we will go to Mr. McNerney. You are next. Presenting SB 1196. and you can begin when you're ready and if you could turn the mic on please good morning madam chair distinguished members of the committee I'm pleased here this morning to present SB 1196, and I'm also pleased to avoid the suspense file. Now, SB 1196 will streamline small energy connection projects, and that includes accessory dwelling units by directing the CPUC to establish timelines for utility hookup requests. along with ADUs and junior ADUs, small energy connection projects are defined by those that do not require infrastructure upgrades by an investor-owned utility. Examples include EV chargers or home battery backup systems. Over the past few years, California has enacted laws to accelerate energy connections for new housing, transportation, and more. but homeowners who have completed small projects including adding an ADU remain frustrated by the long delays in some cases applicants have had to wait up to a year for a utility hookup And that means you invested a significant amount of money for your ADU and you don't get to get any return on that investment for up to a year. Such long delays not only place an undue financial burden on homeowners, but also worsen the state's housing shortage and frustrate California's electrification efforts. SB 1196 streamlines small energy connection projects by allowing applicants to submit a request for a utility hookup at the same time that they request a building permit and by barring utilities from canceling a service connection without the applicant's consent. The bill also directs the California Public Utility Commission to create clear timelines for IOUs to process utility service connection requests and establishes penalties for IOUs that did not timely process small energy connection applications. With me this morning, my main witness in support is Sylvia Aguilar of the Casita Coalition. Sylvia? Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I am Sylvia Aguilar, Programs and Operations Manager for the Casita Coalition. The Casita Coalition is a nonprofit dedicated to advancing middle housing solutions, including ADUs and JADUs. Our founders co-wrote the 2017 law that legalized ADUs statewide and unlocked the California ADU revolution. SB 1196 will streamline small energization projects, including ADUs and JADUs, by directing the CPUC to establish timelines for utility hookup requests. Since 2018, the number of new ADUs permitted in California has skyrocketed from 800 a year to about 30,000 today. ADUs now comprise about one-third of new homes in California, and many homeowners are adding ADUs to rent or lease to residents in need of lower-cost housing. But as Senator McNerney noted, homeowners and ADU builders are increasingly facing a significant barrier, incredibly long delays for service connections. Homeowners and contractors say they're being forced to wait up to 9 to 12 months for energization. IOUs also add delays when they prohibit homeowners from applying for a service connection until the property owner has received a building permit from their local government. This problem alone can cause months of delay. Also, some IOUs cancel small energization applications without the homeowner's consent, prompting even more delays. SB 1196 addresses these problems and adds timelines for IOUs to process applications for small energization projects where the homeowner might only need to add a second meter. The bill also directs the CPUC to establish penalties for IOUs that do not timely process energization applications. SB 1196 is common sense legislation that will ensure California can meet its electrification goals and get low-cost housing and other small energization projects online in a timely manner. And for this, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you Any additional folks in the room wish to express support Madam Chair members of the committee Jordan Pernanakarvajad on behalf of California YIMBY in support Thank you so much Thank you Any witnesses in opposition Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? No. Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. McNerney? I will respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. That is out on an A-Roll call. With Mr. Tonga voting no Thank you And we'll probably have to come back to that one Mr. Aragain Oh, yeah Sorry, on SB 1196, Mr. McNerney Ms. Dixon is voting no Mr. Aragain, yes You can begin SB 1299 Okay Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It's my pleasure to present SB 1299, the State Fire Marshal Fire Suppression Education and Training Safety Act, which is co-sponsored by the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California and the California State Pipe Trades Council. This bill ensures that California has a clear and enforceable framework for certifying and training fire sprinkler fitters. And this bill ensures that only properly trained and certified professionals perform this critical life safety work. We certainly know it's important that these fire suppression systems work to protect the safety of buildings and people in California. And that's why we need to have trained and certified people installing and maintaining these critical life safety systems. Prior to 2017, individuals installing fire sprinkler systems were not required to have specific qualifications. despite the state fire marshal's longstanding requirements requiring knowledgeable and experienced installers. The state did put in place a certification process, but unfortunately a recent court ruling struck down critical life-saving regulations that were implemented by the state fire marshal. However, in the court ruling, it acknowledged that the certification program is necessary to protect public safety, validating the need for enforceable training standards. SB 1299 and AXE standards and codifies them into law to ensure that individuals working on these life safety systems are trained and qualified to do this work. Fire sprinkler systems are one of our most critical tools for saving lives in a fire, and every Californian deserves to know that the fire suppression systems protecting their homes and workplaces and communities have been installed and maintained by qualified professionals. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Randy Roxen on behalf of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California. Thank you. Good morning. Randy Rockson, Executive Director of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California. A fire suppression life safety system installed by unqualified installers could have catastrophic results. SB 1299 requires those who install, repair, inspect, and maintain fire suppression systems be qualified through training and education by completing an approved fire sprinkler apprenticeship training program and pass a written examination by the state fire marshal. SV 1299 is based upon regulations adopted in 2017 by the state fire marshal requiring fire sprinklers or sprinkler fitters to be certified and apprentices registered. The state fire marshal's sprinkler fitter certification program has been in effect for nearly a decade. However, in 2019, a small coalition of contractors sued the State Farm Marshal, alleging a host of discrepancies, namely procedural errors in the Administrative Procedures Act. Over the next seven years, this lawsuit limited the state fire marshal from adequately enforcing key enforcement provisions of its regulation. In December 2025, the court finally ruled on the suit, and while dismissing most of the issues presented in the lawsuit, it did strike some language. However, the court stated that its ruling that the program was necessary for purposes of public safety. The court stated that the state fire marshal could reintroduce those items through the regulatory process if they so desired. Unfortunately, that has not yet been initiated. SB 1299 will restore the stricken regulatory language that required training and education for trainees as well as supervisor to apprentice trainee supervision ratios. Trainees and apprentices installing, repairing, and maintaining life safety fire suppression systems without supervision by a trained and educated supervisor makes little sense. That is what we currently have. SB 1299 would place in statute the same structural rules for qualification, yet provide flexibility to the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations concerning the program's administrative function and penalties for violation. By placing the current Sprinkler Fitter Certification Program in statute will ensure its legacy, despite the many changes of State Fire Marshal Administrations. It will also protect it from lawsuits by those who do not believe that training and education of its sprinkler fitters is necessary. Structurally, the State Fire Marshal's automated system for certifying sprinkler fitters and registering apprentices and trainees is already in place and has been in operation for the past decade, so there will be little the State Fire Marshal must do in its current registration platform. There are currently 25 states across the nation and some cities that have some type of sprinkler fitter certification and license requirements. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close, Mr. Ergine? Respectfully ask your aye vote. That is out on a roll call with Mr. Tana voting. And we have Mr. McGuire, you are up next. And you are presenting AB 1263. You can begin when you're ready. Madam Chair, members, thank you so much for allowing me to be here. I know it's been a long day. First of all, I want to say thank you to you, Madam Chair, and to your incredible staff for all the work on the bill. SB 1263, it's our latest measure. We've had three bills that we've advanced over the years to protect wildfire survivors from unscrupulous contractors and better prepare the state for large-scale post-disaster cleanups. Be very quick. Number one, it's straightforward. I know everybody says that, but it mandates only licensed general engineering, general building, earthwork, and paving contractors can actually perform the work in disaster areas. Number two it requires baseline safety and training standards Bottom line is this the Contractors State Licensing Board they support this bill We working directly with them and they anticipate no implementation costs Additionally, we've worked with the Southern California Contractors Association on amendments. I want to say thank you to them and their cooperation. We're pleased to report they'll be changing their position from opposed to support following the amendments. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any folks wish to express support in the room? Any opposition? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close? Would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That's out on an A-roll call. Next up is AB 2597 by Assemblymember Wicks. Whenever you are ready, you may proceed. Thank you. AB 2597 would appropriate approximately $7.4 million from the general fund. The attorney general will pay eight specific claims against the state. It also includes an urgency clause. This bill is one of several annual bills carried by the chair of either the Assembly Appropriations Committee or the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. With me here are representatives from the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance to answer any questions committee members may have. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I see you have two witnesses. Good morning. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General, here on behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta. And I don't want to repeat what the chair said, so I just wanted to say that I have here with me Deputy Attorney General Megan Hay to answer specified questions. So thank you. Thank you. And Department of Finance? Thank you. Department of Finance supports this bill appropriating $7,391,000. Thank you. And are there any other members of the public in the hearing room who would like to speak in favor of this bill? If so, please approach. Seeing none, any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of this bill, please come forward Seeing none, I will now go ahead and bring it up to the dice Assemblymember Gonzalez Second? Okay, we have a first and a second Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote Okay. It is due pass out on an A roll call. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you We are lifting the call on SB 1359 and adding Ms Colosa as an aye vote And the measure is still on call. Thank you, Ms. Ver. Thank you, since a lot. Let me go back to this. Okay. I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar now. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar? Following bills are Senate bills, 16, 28, 46, 58, 222, 239, 247, 288, 296, 300, 327, 342, 354, 356, 381, 401, 420, 423, 435, 457, 490, 493. 501, 526, 534, 536, 562, 574, 608, 632, 661, 685, 690, 700, 715, 739, 741, 742, 758, 802, 804, 811, 813, 828. 837, 845, 865, 866, 868, 872, 873, 874, 876, 877, 878, 881, 883, 884, 886, 887, 888, 891, 894, 898, 900, 903, 904, 905, 907, 911, 913, 923, 925, 934, 936, 937, 942, 943, 946, 947, 948, 951, 953, 954, 955, 957, 960, 962, 966, 969, 970, 973, 977, 985, 989, 991, 995, 996, 998, 10-04, 10-09, 10-10, 10-12, 10-13, 10-15, 10-16, 10-22, 10-24, 10-25, 10-29, 10-31, 10-32, 10-37, 10-44, 10-49, 10-50, 10-53, 10-54, 10-56, 10-57, 10-64, 10-66, 10-67, 10-69, 10-73, 10-75, 10-78, 10-79, 10-83, 10-87, 10-89, 10-91. 1093 1094 1098 1103 1105 1106 1107 1108 1111 1112 1114 1119 1124 1125 1128 1130 1135 1138 1140 1146 1150 1156 1157 1158 1160 1164 1166 1167 1171 1173 1174 1180 1181 1186 1190 1191 1192 1194 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1208 1213 1220 1224 1227 1230 1233 1234 1240 1242 1245 1246 1250 1255 1257 1259 1266 1268, 1271, 1276, 1279, 1284, 1293, 1295, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1312, 1314, 1315, 1322, 1326, 1328, 1330, 1337, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1360, 1360. 1365, 1366, 1368, 1370, 1373, 1374, 1378, 1379, 1382, 1387, 1388, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1397, 1399, 1401, 1406, 1407, 1412, 1414. 1418, 1421, 1423, 1425, 1435, 1446, and SCR82. Okay, the suspense calendar is deemed approved. And I want to also acknowledge Mr. Arambula is here for SB 1359, voting aye, and that bill is now out. Thank you, Mr. Arambula. And with that, let's go to public comment. I want to open up the hearing today to members of the public on any bill not presented in the committee today. Please limit your comments to name organization and position on the bill. If there's anyone in the room who'd like to testify, please step up to the mic.

That's fine. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs in opposition of SB 954 Blakespear with the following organizations, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, California EMB, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Fieldstead. Thank you.

If I may, a slightly longer statement on SB 1387.

Good morning again, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing, I just wanted to name a number of priority bills that we're hoping – a variety of our clients are hoping you'll see fit to send out of the suspense file to the floor. SB 954, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and the California Environmental Justice Alliance, we are supportive amended on this important bill. SB 1135 by Senator Blake Spear, our client National Wildlife Federation, is co-sponsoring the bill with Defenders of Wildlife but also the San Diego Humane Society and Occidental Arts and Ecology Center are strongly supportive of this bill SB 1180 by Senator Allen support on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium Oceana Ocha Conservancy Surfrider California Environmental Justice Alliance Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. For SB 1250 by Senator Cortese, our clients Pew Charitable Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Climate Plan, San Diego Humane Society are in strong support. Thank you, and thanks for all the work of the committee staff. Appreciate it.

Good morning, Chair and members. Dominique Dene on behalf of Ed Voice and strong support of SB 1067. Thank you.

Good morning again, Chair and members. Juliana Tetlow on behalf of Cal Nonprofits, San Diego Humane Society, and Community Alliance with Family Farmers in very strong support of SB 1240. In addition, on behalf of Asian Pacific Environmental Network and California Environmental Justice Association, strong support of SB 1259. Thank you.

That was SB 381. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair and colleagues, Dean Grafiela with Capital Advocacy here in opposition to SB 1203. Madam Chair, Ms. Swenson, appreciate your availability to discuss this bill. I respectfully

Thank you.

Can I speak our opposition to it since you didn't have a hearing on it? Sure. Thank you. Keep it to two minutes if you could, please.

And with that, we are meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.