Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

On governance and finance will come to order. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our committee. We continue to welcome the public in person, and we also use the teleconference service. So we'll be listening to testimony today from the public on the teleconference service. For individual individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code number is 6217161. We are holding our committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I ask all members of the committee to please be present in room 2100 so we can establish our quorum. We're going to begin today as a subcommittee so we can get started. And we do have our first author, which is really important. We will meet until noon, after which we will have to return.

So if we don't get to something on the agenda today, this morning, we're going to have to return. But we'll return after the Banking and Financial Institution Committee meets at 1:30. So it's my hope we can be expeditious and succinct, but if we have to return, we will. That's not a problem. So we have 21 bills on today's agenda with six proposed for consent. The consent items today are file item number two, AB 98, by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry.

Item number six, AB 262, by Assemblymember Boerner. Item number nine, AB 339, by Assemblymember Irwin. Item number 10, AB 400, by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. Item number 11, AB 444, by Assemblymember Addis. And item 13, AB 556, by Assemblymember Gallagher. So the other thing is that while we're listening to assembly member bills here today, our bills are being heard in the Assembly. So you may see us leave and come. And it's not that we're not interested, it's that we have to go over there and present our own bills. So just for your information. No, we don't have a quorum.

No, we need one more.

Okay.

Why don't we get started with file item number one, AB 28, by Assemblymember Gabriel? Welcome, assemblymember.

Witnesses over there.

All right. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. Good morning.

If I could tell you, our mics are very, very hot. You don't need to touch them because as people move them around, they start popping and then they don't work.

I will do my best not to pop the microphone. I want to first thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank the committee for the thoughtful analysis and for your work on this bill. And we'll be accepting the committee amendments today, so thank you.

Very good. If I could interrupt really quick, it looks like we have a quorum. If you wouldn't mind. Let's call the roll. Then we'll be ready to roll.

Senators, Caballero. Present. Caballero, present. Seyarto. Here. Seyarto, present. Blakespear. Here. Blakespear, present. Dahle. Dahle, present. Durazo. Durazo, present. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener. You have a quorum.

You have a quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm pleased today to present AB 28, a bill that will fund life-saving school safety measures and gun violence prevention programs through a modest excise tax on fire and manufacturers and dealers. As you may know, according to the CDC, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States. According to the CDC, more children were killed by guns in 2021 than any year in the past 20 years.

The parents of a black son, ages 13 to 19 are more likely to lose their child to gun homicide than every other cause of death combined. In addition to its brutal home human toll, gun violence also causes enormous economic harm and imposes severe burdens on taxpayers and on the public. Recent reports have found that gun deaths and injuries cost California $22.6 billion annually, of which 1.2 billion is paid directly by taxpayers.

At the same time, gun manufacturers have recorded record-breaking profits, bragging that the growth they have experienced in recent years has been, quote, nothing short of remarkable. A 2022 report documented a 269% increase in the firearm and ammunition industry's estimated economic impact. In short, firearm manufacturers and dealers are reaping unprecedented windfall profits at the same time that firearm deaths, gun injuries, and mass shootings are devastating communities across our state.

AB 28 seeks to address this challenge by creating a long-term, sustainable funding source to fund school safety and proven violence prevention measures to protect kids and communities across California. The revenue generated by this bill, which is estimated to be around $160,000,000 annually, is a long-term investment in the safety and well-being of every Californian.

The funds generated under this bill will be allocated to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program, known as CalVIP, which has already helped to reduce the rate of gun violence in California. Funds will also be allocated to expand school mental health and safety measures, bolster law enforcement investigations and clearance rates for firearm assaults, support communities impacted by mass shootings and gun violence, and improve firearm relinquishment programs to take guns away from domestic abusers and other prohibited persons.

To be clear, this bill is not a penalty or an effort to prevent or discourage lawful firearm sales. Rather, it aims to create a sustainable funding source for programs that are proven to reduce gun violence and save lives. The fact of the matter is that Californians are counting on us to do everything we can to keep them safe from mass shootings and gun violence. They are counting on us to exhaust every effort to ensure that their children do not live in fear at school, at church, at their local park, or anywhere else that they may be at risk because of gun violence. AB 28 and the programs and initiatives it will fund are essential to that effort.

I'm proud that this bill is supported by a coalition of gun safety organizations, including Moms Demand Action, Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, and March For Our Lives, as well as public health and medical officials who have been serving on the front lines of our gun violence epidemic in emergency rooms and trauma centers. That includes the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, America's Physician Groups, and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

AB 28 is also supported by numerous elected officials who have seen the benefit of CalVIP in their communities, including city attorneys, supervisors, police departments, and over 30 mayors from all different parts of the State of California. With me today to testify in support is Alex Ibarra, a gun violence prevention activist, and Mike McLively, on behalf of one of our supporters, Giffords. Thank you for the time and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Want to welcome you to come forward to the mic here again. It is hot. Just speak. There you go. Perfect.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alexander Ibarra. I am 12 years old and a rising 9th grader at Coliseum College Prep Academy in Oakland, California. I joined the Gun Violence Prevention Movement because of school shootings like Uvalde and Parkland. Shootings that left me terrified to go to school shootings that left me worried that I was going to be the next headline.

Right after the Uvalde shooting, I organized a gun violence prevention rally of over 700 people in Oakland with my classmates because I knew I couldn't sit on the sidelines. And now I'm asking for your support of AB 28 to help ensure that I and other kids my age don't lose our lives to gun violence. Cycles of violence destroy communities every day. In fact, firearms are now the number one cause of death for children in this country.

I feel like every kid in Oakland has a gun violence story and we share them over lunch like if they are Pokemon trading cards. A drive-by shooting, a robbery at a funeral, at the park. We train ourselves to be prepared for any event, always knowing where the exits are, always looking for places to hide. We train ourselves to distinguish between gunshots and fireworks. And let me tell you, that is not a fun game at this time of year. So I'm here today pleading for a change. AB 28 takes steps to prevent gun violence before it happens and invest in solutions we know work to address gun violence. AB 28 is the change that I, my friends, and my classmates need to feel safe. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mike McLively. I'm the policy director of the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention. Giffords is a national gun violence prevention organization named after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head in 2011 while hosting an event for our constituents in Tucson, Arizona.

I speak to you here today not just on behalf of Giffords, but on behalf of the dozens of organizations and agencies and hundreds of individuals that are part of our CaLVIP Coalition, which is the nation's largest coalition dedicated to addressing community violence. Our top priority this year is the passage of Assembly Bill 28. And the reason for that is a convergence of two trends.

One is, as you've heard, the incredible increase in violence that we've seen here in California and across the nation since the onset of the COVID epidemic. And the second is the record profits that the gun industry has seen as gun sales have increased at the same time that gun violence is increasing in our state. And I'm here to say that there's nothing wrong with our policies. They have been working very effectively since the 90s when we started improving our gun safety laws.

Gun homicide and suicide rates in California have plummeted while they've increased nationwide and in other states. When you compare us directly to Texas, we have lower gun death rates, lower gun homicide rates, and lower gun suicide rates. And that is no mistake. Our policies are working, but we need to continue to support them.

And that is why we are supporting AB 28, which would place a modest 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition and would direct those revenues, approximately $160,000,000, to the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund, which would fund, as you've heard, CalVIP, which has helped reduce violence in our communities across the state, as well as relinquishment programs that will help keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers improve our school safety and also increase the homicide clearance rate in our cities, which is an incredibly important part of reducing violence.

This tax is reasonable, and it's modest. When the State of California wants to prevent someone from purchasing a product, we know how to do that. Consider that the excise tax on the sale of certain tobacco products in the state is as high as 60%. And here we're talking about an 11% excise tax. This mirrors a tax at the federal level which has been praised by the firearm industry itself.

And they've applauded it as something that has helped conserve wildlife, which is what the federal excise tax does. And to that, we say if the industry can get behind protecting wildlife, it should be able to get behind resources to protect human life. As you heard from Alex, this is impacting our communities every single day. And this is what AB 28 is designed to do in closing, create stable revenue for a suite of programs that we know will save lives and make our communities safer.

It's more than reasonable to ask the industry to pay a modest share of its record profits to help keep our communities safer, and in doing so, save tens of thousands, thousands of lives and prevent thousands more from being shot and injured in this state. No other industry is subject to the same protections in this country. And we can once again lead the nation when it comes to putting public safety above profits. We urge you to pass AB 28 out of this committee. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. I neglected to explain that we allow two lead witnesses two minutes each, and then afterwards we'll invite members of the public to come up, identify yourself, what organization you're from, and whether you're in support or opposition. And we'll do the same thing on the teleconference line. So right now I'd like to ask anybody that wants to testify in support to please come forward, stand at the mic. You can line up if you'd like, if you could tell us your name, your affiliation, and whether you support. Well, right now it's the support testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the full City Council, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Gabriel Garcia, policy and advocacy director with Youth Alive in Oakland, in strong support.

Thank you.

Emily Ault. I live in Davis, and I'm a Moms Demand Action volunteer. Strong support.

Thank you.

Anya Patri, March for Our Lives, strong support.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Pearson, and I'm in support. May I say a few words?

No, I'm sorry, we got to let everybody have a chance.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming.

Hi, I'm Jordan Clary. I'm here with March for Our Lives, and I'm in support.

Great.

Clare Senchyna, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support in honor of my only child taken by gun violence.

Sorry to hear that.

Hello, my name is Carol Kinser from Elk Grove, and I am a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and as a registered nurse, I definitely want you to support AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Suzanne Lander. I live here in Sacramento. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support for AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Claude Duplat. I live here in Sacramento and I urge your support for AB 28.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary Duplat. I am a gun violence survivor. I live in Sacramento and I urge your strong support. And I'm a volunteer for Moms Demand Action.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Julie Chapman. I'm from Fair Oaks, California and I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I urge you to strongly support this.

Thank you.

I'm Yara Judal. I am a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I urge your support for AB 28.

Thank you.

I'm Catherine Campy. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I urge you to support this.

Thank you.

I'm Griggs. I'm in Movement for Life. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm a strong supporter.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Tressa Cooper. I'm a volunteer with the Folsom Foothills Moms Demand Action and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Hi, excuse me, I'm Ann Rolke. I live in Sacramento. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I urge you to support AB 28.

Thank you.

Hi, Mona Cadena. I'm with Equal Justice USA. I'm our policy director from San Francisco, and we're in strong support of AB 28.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Georgine Redmond from Davis, California. I'm active member of Moms Demand Action. Please, please support AB 28.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Erin Chamberlain from San Rafael, and I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and the Gun Sense Action Network, and I urge you to support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Cheryl Davis from Folsom, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I, too, urge you to pass AB 28.

Thank you.

Mary Lou Rossetto from Yolo County, Moms Demand Action volunteer, former police officer.

Thank you.

Kim Howard from Davis, California. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I strongly urge your support of AB 28.

Thank you.

Patty Scritchfield, Cameron Park, El Dorado County, retired school counselor, and I urge your support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for all your time and attention. My name is Catherine Amorta. I live in Folsom and I strongly encourage your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kayla Garcia-Pebdani. I am a volunteer with Students Demand Action and a student at UC Davis. I highly urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michelle Sinnott Petersen, mother and constituent of Senator Glazer, and I strongly urge your support of AB 28.

Thank you.

Susan Gordon from Walnut Creek. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. I strongly support AB 28.

I'm Donna Perham from Walnut Creek, volunteer from Moms Demand Action, and I strongly urge you to support AB 28.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Shannon Catanella. I'm from Rockland, California, and I strongly urge you to support AB 28 in honor of my three children who are currently enrolled in schools here.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gabrielle Brook. I live in Sacramento. I work for Juma Ventures and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Stephen Norris. Here in Sacramento, I'm with Juma Ventures and I strongly support.

Hi, my name is Claire Wheeler. I also am with Juma Ventures in Sacramento, and I strongly support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association, in support.

Hello, my name is Cameron Clark. I'm an ex-lifer, gang member, and I'm the CEO of Developing Organizing Visions for Everyone. And this is it. This is your guys' opportunity.

Thank you.

Danny Offer with Everytown for Gun Safety in strong support of the bill.

Thank you.

Karen Lange on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support.

Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Kenneth Andrews, credible mentor from Movement for Life, City of Sacramento. I greatly appreciate you guys support on AB 28. We could use the help.

Thank you.

Knox, credible mentor for Movement for Life, and I strongly agree with the AB 28 bill.

Thank you.

Yvonne Kirimis, credible mentor, Movement for Life, Beautiful Evolutions, in support of AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2100 that would like to speak in support? Seeing no movement, I'm going to see if there's anybody that would. Okay, one more.

Christopher Ibarra, restorative justice facilitator for Oakland Unified School District, here on behalf of Students Demand Action for my son, Alex, in conjunction with Moms Demand Action, in great support for our children for AB 28.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Julio. I'm from the City of Berkeley and I'm here to support AB 28. I encourage you all to do the same.

Thank you very much. Let me try that one more time because there may be somebody that's a little bit shy out there. If you haven't spoken and you'd like to speak in support, I want to invite you to please come to the mic because now's your chance. Okay, seeing no one else in support, we're going to move on for witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody who would like to speak in opposition? Want to invite you to please come to the mic. This is in room 2100. Seeing no one to speak. Okay, I'm sorry. So you will be the lead witness in opposition. Very good.

Honorable members of Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. My name is Lola Fitzgerald.

My name is Marissa Sandoval.

And my name is Amaya Mesa.

And we are here today. We are here to stand before you today to shed light on an issue that deeply concerns me and my fellow teammates. I'm from St. Lucy's Clay Target Team and I would love to share my background and express my strong opposition to AB 28, urging you to vote against it. At the age of nine, I discovered my love for skeet shooting while accompanying my father to the range.

Since then, I have dedicated countless hours to honing my skills and participating in competitive events over the years. I have achieved significant success, including winning National Skeet Shooting Association Junior titles for California and securing multiple state, national, and world titles in my age category. Recognizing the importance of my enthusiasm for this sport with my peers and fostering a sense of inclusivity, I look to initiate to establish the St. Lucy's Scholastic Clay Target Team Program.

With the support of my school's administration and my father, we created a platform for aspiring young women to engage in clay target shooting and develop valuable experiences as a part of a high school team. We aim to empower young women from diverse backgrounds and physical abilities, offering them a unique opportunity to participate in a school sport that builds character. Clay target shooting is not only challenging, but incredibly safe.

In fact, according to gathering data, it boasts that it's the lowest injury rate among high school sports, with football being the number one with injury. It is a sport that is both inclusive and compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, ensuring that individuals of all abilities can participate. Unfortunately, the high up costs associated with the sport poses significant barrier for many aspiring athletes. It is crucial to emphasize that our team is not contributing to gun violence in society.

On the contrary, we actively promote responsible firearm handling and storage practices. Ensuring safety is always paramount. By engaging in this outdoor activity, we are welcoming space for young women and individuals who may not have the same opportunities in traditional sports. It is my wish that St. Lucy's Clay Target Team remains accessible to all, regardless of financial constraints. However, the passage of AB 2571 has already dealt a severe blow to our ability to fundraise and sustain our activities.

Now, the introduction of AB 28, which possesses an 11% tax on our equipment and ammunition, threatens to hinder our participation in this Olympic sport. In conclusion, I implore you to protect the dreams and aspirations of myself and my fellow teammates, and I kindly request that you vote no on AB 28 and prevent the imposition of this burdensome tax and threatens the future of our sport. Let us continue to foster inclusivity, empowerment among young athletes, and provide opportunities for personal growth for the clay target team. Thank you for your attention and consideration in this matter. Lola Fitzgerald.

Thank you very much.

Well, Madam Chair and members. Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, I want to start off my comments by addressing something that the author pointed out. An often quoted myth that children are now the number one cause of gun violence is now the number one cause of death in children. As a matter of fact, that came from one study conducted in Michigan that has now been used by the media and even the CDC under political pressure.

The fact of the matter is that they include 18 and 19 year olds in that survey, and those 18 and 19 year olds constitute 47.4% of all violence committed with guns. So if you take out 18 and 19 year olds that we do not consider youth, the actual number is greatly reduced. As a matter of fact, if you go further into the CDC's information, you will find that they quote that approximately 880 to 110 youth are inadvertently killed every year.

And that's way too much, and we're working to prevent even that. But the fact of the matter is that gun violence is not the number one cause of the death in children. That is a fact. Number two, the author pointed out that taxing tobacco was punitive in order to discourage its youth, its use. The fact of the matter is, the Second Amendment is not a privilege like smoking or use of tobacco.

It is a constitutionally protected right, a right that you cannot put a precursor on, demanding a precursor before somebody exercises that constitutionally enumerated right that pre-existed the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The author talked about the Pittman-Robertson Excise tax that has been around for a long, long time. It has funded wildlife management and activities across the country. The only reason that it continues to exist is because it has not been challenged.

This bill will encourage us, or give us the drive to challenge excise taxes on the exercising of a constitutionally enumerated right. That means that as well as this law never seeing the light of day, because the courts have already ruled, you cannot tax ink, you cannot tax pens, you cannot tax paper, and in the modern area, you cannot tax computers or other modern equipment that is used to exercise First Amendment rights. The same is true with the Second Amendment.

So we do not believe that this law will ever see the light of day. If this is an issue that we agree is very important, the CalVIP program and all of the numerous other programs that exist out there need to be funded. It needs to be funded by the entire populace of the State of California because everybody has an interest. What this does is it assigns blame to the lawful gun owners who legally purchase firearms and ammunition. That's what this bill is doing.

It's saying, hey, it's your fault. You're going to pay for it, no matter how laudable the goals are. So we're in opposition to that, not against any of the laudable programs. I'm speaking to you as a two time victim of gun violence, including a bank robbery and a home invasion. And we have, between 1.5 and 3 million times a year, lawful citizens use guns to successfully defend themselves.

And by adding another excise tax, you are limiting those that are the most needy for being able to avail themselves of firearms for self defense. You're pricing them out. You're saying, you know, you live in East LA, where I grew up. Hey, it's too expensive for you to buy a gun, rely on the sheriff's department. That's not the way our Constitution works. That's not the way our rights work. Each of us have an individual right and responsibility to be our own first line of defense.

Because when you need a police officer, right now, they are five minutes away and a lot can happen in five minutes. So we call into question the constitutionality of this bill. We agree that excise taxes are now all going to go away when we go to court. The courts are already clear on putting precursors on the exercising of an enumerated constitutional right. If anybody has any questions on any of the things that I pointed out, I'd be happy to answer them when the time is appropriate. Thank you very much. We really hope that you will take into account these issues. This law will be challenged, and I am 100% confident that we will be victorious in court to find it unconstitutional. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition? These are the me-too's.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Michael Findlay, director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We are the national trade association for America's firearm manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, FFLs, as well as ranges. Our name was invoked a number of times today. Unfortunately, we can't correct the record, but we are here. We're able to answer any questions if you have it. But one thing that we would like to correct is that.

This is a me-too. I'm sorry. This is not the time to keep speaking.

Thank you so much Madam Chair. We're in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee. For the record, Dan Reid, western regional director at the National Rifle Association, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jason Fitzgerald. I'm a member of USA Shooting and I'm in opposition of the bill.

Thank you.

Ed Mesa from Los Angeles, California. I'm in opposition of AB 28.

Thank you.

My name is Martha Cortez Sandoval, and I'm against AB 28.

Thank you.

Greg Hurner on behalf of the nine chapters of Safari Club International in California, in opposition to AB 28.

Thank you. If there were anyone else in room 2100 that would like to speak in opposition? Now is your opportunity. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Moderator, if you could open the teleconference line and invite individuals that would like to give testimony today, either in opposition or support, now is the time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As she indicated, if you are in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 28, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. We'll begin with line 10. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Samira Watt. I'm a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and I'm a certified range safety officer. I call today to strongly oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 49, please go ahead.

Cliff Berg on behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, JPAC, representing over 30 statewide and regional Jewish organizations in California, in strong support of Assemblyman Gabriel's bill.

Thank you.

Line 57, you are open.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of Brady Campaign, Brady California, and Brady Fresno Chapter, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, line 28.

Good morning. Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 34, you are open.

Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Bill Gaines, proudly representing the California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the California Deer Association, the California Bowmen Hunters State Archery Association, California Houndsmen for Conservation, the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, the Sassoon Resource Conservation District, the Black Brant Group, the California Hawking Club, the Cal-Ore Wetlands and Waterfowl Council, and the San Diego County Wildlife Federation, all in strong opposition to AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 17, please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Carlene Ellis. I am a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA, the Armed Women of America, and I'm a competitive pistol shooter. I would like to strongly oppose any extra taxation, and especially AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 43, please go ahead.

My name is Rory Henley from the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Owners Association, in strong opposition of AB 28.

Thank you very much.

Line 15, you are up.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm Gary Brennan, the President of the San Diego County Wildlife Federation. We are strongly opposed to AB 28 and the taxation of our constitutional rights. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, line 55.

I'm Peter Stein from Women for American Values and Ethics, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 19, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Steve. I'm a life member of the NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Association, US Navy veteran, and a certified range safety officer. And I am respectfully urging the committee to vote no on AB 28. We're taxed enough already. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 25, please go ahead.

Madam Chair, this is Tim McMahon. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento Chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA member, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Line 30, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Hume. I'm an NRA member and I strongly oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 52, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Julia Demlow from Orange County, and I'm the chair of Women for American Values and Ethics Gun Safety Working Action Group, and we strongly support AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 22.

Hi, my name is Janet Sorette. I'm from Campbell. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I strongly support AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 24, please go ahead.

I'm.

You're open, 24.

Sharon Jenkins, a volunteer from San Jose with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in strong support of AB 28.

Thank you very much.

Line 39, please go ahead.

My name is Suzanne Verge and I urge your support for AB 28. And I'm with Brady Los Angeles Chapter. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 35, please go ahead.

Hi, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Mark Henley with California Waterfowl Association. We represent duck hunters across the state and we are in strong opposition to this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 11, you are open.

Hi, my name is Roan Thibault. I'm a volunteer with Students Demand Action at UC Davis, and I strongly ask for and aye vote on AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 16.

Hi, this is Eden Bjornson with Students Demand Action, in strong support of AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

You are open, line 58.

Madam Chair, committee members. Beth, board member and treasurer with Sonoma County Brady United, in support of Assembly Bill 28.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 41.

Hi, my name is Amy Seropian. I live in Davis. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I have strong support for AB 28.

Thank you.

Line 14, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Tess Johnson. I'm a registered nurse and also a member of Brady Greater Fresno, and I fully support AB 28.

Thank you very much.

You are open, line 61.

Hi, my name is Dan Scholes. I'm a member of the NRA and California Rifle Pistol Association, and I urge a no vote on AB 28.

Please go ahead. Line 47.

I'm Patricia Scarsdale. I'm a Member of the NRA, the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California and I strongly oppose AB 28.

Thank you.

Line 44, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Pat Hurton. I am the Chairman of the Tehama County Gun Owners, a life member of the NRA, life member of the California Rifle Pistol Association and a retired California Highway Patrol sergeant. I am calling in strong opposition to AB 28. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 33.

Hello, this is Cheryl Revkin. I live in East Los Angeles. I'm in strong support of AB 28 to make my community safer.

Thank you very much.

You are open. Line 21.

Hi, this is Heather Breckow with Students Demand Action, in Glendale. I am in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Line 40, please go ahead.

Rick Travis, Legislative Director of California Rifle Pistol Association. Opposition to AB 28.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 32.

Hi. Taylor Dalkey, constituent of Senator Glazer's District. A regular member of California Waterfowl Association and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I respectfully and strongly oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 56, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jose Lopez Alvarez. I'm a Member of the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association and I urge you to oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 29, please go ahead.

Good morning. I'm Ronald Bandel from San Jose. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I'm calling in to strongly support AB 28.

You are open. Line 53.

Hi, good morning. This is Diana Honeck. I am a resident of Orinda and a constituent of Senator Glazer. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support of AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 29, you are open. I think he took himself out of queue, so we'll move along to Line 26.

Good morning. My name is Stephanie Brown. I'm a survivor of gun violence here in San Francisco. A volunteer with moms demand action in San Francisco and I strongly urge support for AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 12, please go ahead.

Name is Andrea Dee from Oceanside. I am a retired teacher and volunteer with Moms Demand Action. I support AB 28.

Line 46, you are open.

Hi. Thank you. My name is Richard Heiler. I live in Folsom, California. I survive a handgun robbery and strongly oppose AB 28, and promote putting criminals back in jail. Thank you.

Line 59, please go ahead.

Good morning. Kathy Graham. I am on the Board of Directors of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. I'm a life member of the NRA and the CRPA, and I strongly oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Line 31, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Nathan Pierce in Richmond, California. I'm with Moms Demand Action in Everytown, and I support AB 28.

Thank you very much.

Line 45, you are open.

Hi, my name is Tammy Von Buck. I'm a mom and a member of Ventura County Gun Owners, and I strongly oppose AB 28. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 18.

My name is Mark Rasmussen, Amador County resident and concerned citizen, and I strongly oppose AB 28.

Line 63, please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Piper Benham with Women for American Values and Ethics in Newport Beach, California. Strongly support AB 28.

Line 62. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Colin Ford with Fresh Lifelines for Youth, in strong support of AB 28. Thank you.

Let's give a final reminder, Madam Chair, if you're in support or opposition to AB 28, please take this opportunity and press 1, followed by 0. Line 67, please go ahead.

My name is Dale Hume. I'm a San Francisco County resident and concerned citizen and parent, and I oppose AB 28.

You are open. Line 69.

Hi, my name is Mariah Hodge. I'm from Sunnyville, California, and I'm with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. And I'm calling in strong support of AB 28 to fund life-saving gun violence prevention. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 71.

My name is Sophia Marcini. I'm from the Berkeley YMCA Youth and Government Delegation, and I am calling in strong support of AB 28.

Line 60, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Ron Lander. I'm a retired, decorated sergeant with the LA County Sheriff's Department, Chairman of the Riverside chapter of CRPA, and on behalf of my 700 Members, we strongly oppose AB 28.

Line 72, you are open.

I'm Linda Wheaton, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action from Carmichael. Strongly urging AB 28 support.

Please go ahead. Line 70.

My name is Richard Muscanis. I'm in Sacramento, California. I'm a federal firearms license holder, member of the NRA, and I strongly oppose AB 28.

And, Madam Chair, we exhausted the queue, all right.

It turned into Mr. Chair, but that's okay. So now we're going to bring it back to the dais, and I understand Senator Dahle needs to-

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing the Bill forward. I have just made some comments and not really much of a question. I want to start out by saying first, to all those who came and spent time here to testify, I really appreciate your testimony and understand where you come from and why you're doing what you do. And so I want to say that in this Bill, there are some things I do have issue with.

Mainly, first of all, all the programs that you want to fund, I have no problem with that. I think that we should fund that. And as a firearm owner, we pay a tax when we purchase our firearms and when we do the background checks and all the things.

And a couple of years ago, we had about, I think it was $2 million. And basically, when you purchase a firearm, I think it's $50 for the background check. And of that $50, it really only took like $21 to do the background check. And there was extra resources available, and we brought forth the opportunity to maybe use that money to actually go after folks who illegally own firearms in California.

And the money was taken and put into the general fund. So I want to just state that we've been working on trying to fund some of these programs that you put forward. But quite frankly, the leadership did not see fit to spend that money on the programs that you're trying to fund now. And recently, I want to say that I think that we are stepping on kind of shaky ground when we look at a company or a company's profits and then decide whether or not they should be using that money to do whatever. We saw a profit tax this year the Governor proposed on oil companies.

And we don't go after companies like Apple and Google that are making billions of dollars in profits to fund things and other things. We go after just the ones that are selected. So I think that that's not appropriate. I think we should be looking at ways to fund the things that we want to do through the whole population of California. And so I think that's something critical.

The other thing that I wanted to touch that's in the Bill is that you're going to be taxing things like bow and arrows, and the part where the retailers are going to have to figure out how they're going to do those transactions, actually do the taxes, is problematic as well. But for the most part, I just want to say that the frustration I have is that it's awesome to see this many people here when we talk about firearms.

But in the past couple of weeks, we brought bills forward on fentanyl. 5961 people died of fentanyl, and we tried to do a Bill for fentanyl. And nothing. No, this room was empty. And the leadership of this Senate and Assembly decided not to hear those bills. And that to me, is just the hypocrisy of what happens here in California. If it's about gun violence and taxing people who have firearms, fine. And let's narrow it down. Let's figure out where we're going to spend the money.

But at the same time, we should be looking at the whole broad thing of what's happening here in California as far as deaths to our youth and to people. And the other thing I want to comment on is that I think the opposition brought out a good point. We have a constitutional right to bear arms. And do we have gun violence in California and across this nation? Absolutely. And is it tragic? It is.

But I think we can do a better way of funding these programs without doing it on the backs of those people who are doing sporting events and the likes. And I think that we should narrow it down to the things that are actually really causing problems. Bows and arrows aren't the things that are causing death in California. So I won't be supporting your Bill today. I'm assuming this Bill gets out and is going to go to the Governor. I have no reason to believe it won't.

And I'm sorry that I can't hang around. I'm the Vice Chair of EQ to hear the rest of the testimony, and they're waiting for me over there. But I wanted to come and make those comments and also just make sure that the folks, the moms that are here, understand where you're at, look forward to working with you and maybe a better solution as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Well, thank you. First, I'd like to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward. I am a proud co-author on this Bill, and I know there are a diversity of opinions in this room from my colleagues and from the testimony we heard. But to me, this seems like a very reasonable and even modest, as you described, a modest share of record profits.

We know that we have an epidemic of gun violence in this country and in this state and that we are safer in this state because of our gun safety laws. There is much we can do, and this is one of those pieces of the puzzle. So making sure that we move forward with this is really critically important. I just want to say that I'm deeply grateful for the Moms Demand Action and the Students Demand Action, and Gun Safety for Everytown and March for our Lives.

The volunteers who are here, who show up again and again and again on every gun safety Bill, makes such a difference. And it really shows the commitment of our constituency for change. And we need that in order to continue to have the momentum for change. So I want to say a big thank you. And I also want to just recognize that you had two excellent lead witnesses, very persuasive, very useful, and I appreciate them taking the time to come as well.

This will not affect participation in sports teams or recreational clubs, really, in any way. And it makes a lot of sense to me that when you look at the other things we have excise taxes on, in the State of California, it's cigarettes and tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, motor vehicles, diesel fuels, cannabis. Our Chair, she also had a Bill two years ago which imposed a tax on consumers of electronic cigarettes collected by retailers. And so what this money will go toward are really important programs.

So, violence prevention programs, gun violence prevention education, gun violence prevention research programs, school safety measures, programs remediating the harmful effects of gun violence, supporting victims of gun violence. All of those things need a revenue stream that is consistent and ongoing. And this is a really critical piece of that. So I just want to say a thank you, and I am an enthusiastic supporter, and when it comes time, I'll move this.

All right, that leaves me. One of the witnesses in opposition, Lola? Is she still in the building here? Lola, I had a couple of questions for you real quick. Don't mean to put you on the spot here. So, Lola, you are a competitive shooter, correct?

Yes, sir.

And you have how many championship medals?

I brought five with me today.

Five of your- And are they bronze medals or silver?

Zero, they're all gold.

They're all gold medals. So someday you have the potential to represent the United States in the Olympics?

Yes, sir. That's my main goal, that I want to be an Olympian.

All right, so how much practice do you need to do every week?

During a week, I practice three to four days a week. And because it's summer, I've been practicing every morning.

Okay. And when you practice, obviously, you have to shoot ammunition.

Correct.

And so that's an expense. With a tax like this, how much is it going to cost you more to try to practice your sport so you can represent us in the Olympics someday?

Me with my girls, it'll range from an increase of $300 to $500 a week.

Okay. So that's substantial. And that will actually help, or that'll probably cause some of your teammates not to be able to afford to stay into the skeet shooting.

Correct. It'll be very hard for us to stay in our sport.

I see. All right, well, I appreciate that you came here to speak, to let people kind of see that there's other sides to this just besides the gun violence, folks. So thank you so much for coming out. And I have a few more comments here.

Thank you for your time.

All right, so my comments kind of revolve around the issue of, there is gun violence in the United States. Everybody agrees with that. There's not one person in this room, including the opposition to this particular Bill, who doesn't agree that we can have programs that are extremely valuable or hopefully will have an impact on violence that is taking the lives of, not just young people, but lots of people. And these reduction programs- In fact, this Bill is not old. This is not a brand new Bill.

This Bill has been run before. And the first time we talked about it, we were also at the same time trying to figure out what we do with 38.5 billion extra dollars that we had extracted from the general public. And then the next year, we were trying to figure out what to do with the $97.5 billion that we extracted from the public. And these programs were not important enough to be funded? Well, they were, and they got funded, thankfully.

This is a societal problem, and it's up to everybody to participate in trying to address the issues that are creating not just gun violence, because, mind you, it's not just gun violence that I had to deal with. I had people that died a lot of stabbings, so knives, we had people using shovels, we had people using sledgehammers. We had an ice pick or two. There was lots of ways that people were being violent against others and killing them.

Trying to ferret out and tax one segment of the population for something that they have nothing more to do than anybody else in this room has to do with. That's an unfair tax. And that's what this body today, this is not the Public Safety Committee. This is Gov and Finance, and this is how we finance things. We don't need to unfairly tax a small portion of the population to address an issue that they have really nothing to do with.

Like I said, nothing more to do with it than any other person in this room. And certainly this particular Bill that does that is not going to have any impact whatsoever on gun violence. And that's one of the issues that we have- is we need to make sure that what we do is we ensure that we're spending money in the areas that will have the impact on gun violence.

And one of the things we did in our budget sub five this year, is we moved money away from a program that was failing, that was not working. It was a gun buyback program. And all the stats in California showed it was not working. So we moved that money into an account to help them address the issue of the 24,000 people who are prohibited, known prohibited persons that are carrying guns, that are out there.

And that money instead got funneled into that account so that they could start going after people who are the problem. So if these people are 100% of the problem and these people are zero, and all of your efforts are on the people that are zero, you're still going to have 100% of the problem. So that's what this is about, is we can fund this program. Although they're talking about our deficit, we are still going to spend, or we still have in our budget $311 billion.

So if we can't carve out 100 million or 200 million to address this stuff with all of these programs well funded, then, folks, our priorities are in the wrong place. Because I'll vote for that every single day, because I want these programs to work not just for gun violence, but for all violence. Because most of this violence takes place in communities that are underserved communities. And it's really concentrated in some of those, and those are communities that I used to serve.

And so I've seen it firsthand. We need to focus on the parts that are broken, the parts that we can make an impact on. And I don't see this doing that any more than- I just don't see this having that effect on the gun violence issue. So we are with you. We want this to go away. We want gun violence to be addressed, but we're not doing the things that will make it go away.

Instead, we are focused on things that make you think we're addressing it, but we really aren't. And that's my issue with this. From a finance perspective, we have the finances to fund those things, and that's what we should be using it for. We should prioritize that. So all of those things that everybody in here is asking for are funded, and we continue to try to make a dent on this issue. So I cannot support this Bill.

I didn't support it last year and I didn't support it the year before. And that's why. Because it is unfair. Until we find the fortitude to do the things that are the right things to reduce, and that's to go after the people that shouldn't have guns, but we won't even enforce those laws, that's a problem. We won't enforce those laws. So that's my comment with that, you can go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. You get to close. I don't. You get to close.

Thank you very much. So a lot to unpack there. Appreciate the conversation. Appreciate the comments from Senator Dahle, who's no longer here. And I understand because we're all being ping ponged around between our various committees. Let me just say a few things. First of all, you know, I had the chance to meet with Lola and Marissa and Amaya in my office this morning. They asked for a meeting and I said, of course. And I want to applaud them for coming up and making their voices heard.

And same way as Alex, I think it's so important, particularly that young people are participating in the political process. What we talked a little bit about with them, they're very fortunate. They go to a private school, St. Lucie's. They have a lot of security at a secure perimeter and other things. What I help them to understand is I have kids in LAUSD. My first grader just did an active shooter drill.

And I explained to them when I was a young person going to public school in the State of California, we did earthquake drills. We did stop, drop and roll for fires. We never did active shooter drills. And that guns have now because indisputably, according to the CDC, are the leading cause of death for young people. It's not auto accidents, it's not cancer, it's not drunk driving, it's not drugs. It is guns. Guns are the leading cause of death of young people in the United States.

And I think to the point about the fairness of the tax, I actually would flip it on its head. I think it's actually unfair to the people of the State of California and the taxpayers of State of California. We are effectively subsidizing the firearm industry right now with the way that this works. When people produce a product that has a greater harm on society, that's called a negative externality. We ask them to own some of that cost.

So gun manufacturers are producing a product right now that is costing the State of California $22.6 billion annually, 1.2 billion directly by taxpayers. Your constituents, Senator, are subsidizing gun manufacturers. And so what we're asking them to do is to pay a little bit of the fair share to help fund school safety, to help fund a lot of the programs you're talking about.

This would be $15 million annually to go in and take guns away from prohibited persons, domestic abusers, others who should not by law be possessing firearms. I appreciated what Senator Dahle said. These are really good problems. And I think programs, I think you actually heard from the opposition that they support this.

And if you're worried about the efficacy or the effectiveness of this program, one, there is incredible research that I can share with your office about the CalVIP program, about how it's reduced violence in the cities where it has been implemented. And I'd respectfully direct you to the letter from Chief Moore, from the LAPD, not a very ideological person, who talks very eloquently about the role that CalVIP and these violence intervention programs play in reducing gun violence and reducing gun deaths in communities.

So law enforcement, we have law enforcement agencies across the State of California that are saying this is an important effort. These are dollars that are well spent. They have proven to reduce gun violence in our communities, and we support this Bill. So, again, there's been a lot of talk here about the costs that are going to be imposed on consumers. I'm not exactly sure what Senator Dahle was referring to with the bows and arrows. That's, I think, a federal thing with Pittman-Robertson.

That's not in this Bill. This is a tax on the manufacturers, and that is what makes this Bill different. I wouldn't say that this Bill has been run in previous years. There's some similarities to bills that have been run in different periods. This is a very different Bill because the tax is on the manufacturer. It's saying, we are no longer going to subsidize people who are making a product that is killing our children at record rates, making America a total outlier.

This is a uniquely American phenomenon. And people talk about all the other causes of violence. They have violent video games and mental health issues and all of these other challenges in every other country in the world. What they don't have is kids being at risk at school.

And I would respectfully suggest to you that the experience of Alex is much more representative, sadly and shamefully, much more representative of the experience of young people in the State of California than these young ladies who traveled up to be with us here. The fear that he talked about, the anxiety that he talked about, the death that he talked about, the fact that people don't feel safe going anywhere, including in the places where they're supposed to go to get educated.

That is, unfortunately, the reality that we have created for our children. And I think that is shameful. And I think it is a poor reflection on us. And it is, unfortunately, first and foremost, a public policy choice. We have made poor public policy choices to subsidize a gun industry to put them in an unfair position. And now our children are paying the cost of that. And this, I think, is a, again, this is a modest tax.

This is comparable to a federal tax that the NRA has held up as a model. The NRA has lauded the federal tax. So it's a little bit hard for people to talk out of both sides of their mouth. They've never said the federal tax is unconstitutional. They've never said it's a problem. They said, this is great. It generates revenue to protect wildlife.

Well, if we can have a tax to generate revenue, protect wildlife on consumers, we can certainly have a tax on manufacturers to generate revenue to protect our young people, because I think our kids are way more important, frankly, than wildlife. And we owe it to them. We owe it to them to do everything that we possibly can. So we see this as a thoughtful, modest, common sense proposal. It is going to generate $160 million annually. Again, I appreciate your support for CalVIP and these programs Senator.

I'd love to run a Bill with you next year to increase funding for those programs out of the general fund. We did good work in previous years when we had a budget surplus, but that funding is about to expire, and a lot of these programs will go away. If we don't create a new revenue source for these programs, they're going to go away and we're going to see a further increase in gun violence and gun death in our community.

And that is something that I don't think any of us can stand by and allow to happen. So with that, appreciate the respectful conversation or appreciate the points of view, but would respectfully request an aye vote on this Bill.

Thank you very much. So the motion on this. Do I have a motion by Senator Blakespear? It's due pass as amended, to Public Safety.

[Roll Call] Two to one.

All right, we're going to hold that open for- Actually, what do we call not holding it open? Yeah, we're going to keep the roll open.

All right. We're going to give it just a couple of minutes. If people don't want to stay for the remainder of the hearing, they're welcome to get up.

I do have three.

Yes, you do.

I don't think they'll take 45 minutes.

Okay. All those people were waiting out in the hallway. They're coming back, right?

They're going to come back in just for me.

All right, so we're going to AB 233 and Ms. Wilson, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All right. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair. And the Members that are still remaining. I know there's many coming back. I'm pleased to present AB 23. This will allow local governments to have the option of implementing an ordinance that would require animal owners to clean up animal excrement that is deposited on public property. I'd first like to thank the Committee for the suggested amendments. I am accepting the amendments which will expand the Bill to allow local governments to apply its provisions to private property as well. While this Bill is declaratory of existing law, this Bill will also provide clarity local governments, such as those in my district, need in order to explore options to address animal waste left on public roads as well as public property. This particular issue came up while I was vice mayor of my city, and we had got language in regarding to horse excrement, of not being able to regulate in that space, and as well as checked in with other Solano County cities and they had received a similar instruction. And so we think it's important that some counties or some cities are doing different things across our state and wanted to ensure that there is clarity for all cities and that they are all held to the same standard when in terms of determining what type of ordinance that they can create. Article 11, section seven of the state constitutions allows cities and counties to make and enforce, within its limits, all local police, sanitary and other ordinance and regulations not in conflict with General laws commonly known as a police power. It is this provision of the Constitution that allows cities and counties to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the public, including land use authority. Even though many local governments have already adopted ordinances under their General police powers, there is no state law specifically authorizing local governments to adopt ordinances requiring animal owners to clean up after their animals, and in particular, why this Bill was originally created. Horses. For any excrement that is left on public property or private property, the cost of cleanup will fall on the local government or a local business owner. And additionally, if excrement removal is neglected, there are potential runoff issues that can lead to nutrients entering groundwater or surface water sources. I do appreciate that when you look and do searches on this, there are many, many horse organizations and other organizations related to animals and pets that do encourage pets, animals of all type to clean up after. But it is an encouragement, not a requirement. As a former local leader, I understand how important it is to have local control because local leaders have the opportunity to implement laws that will benefit their cities and they are on the front lines of their community. Although we have an opportunity to represent our communities, we leave our communities to represent them. Local leaders have to serve in the communities they represent, and they have to see them at the grocery store, at the bank, getting their nails done, even in their workplaces. And so AB 233 does allow for local control. With that, I give it over to the Committee if there's any discussions need to be had. But I do thank you all and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much. Did you bring any witnesses with you?

Okay, so is there anybody in the room that would like to add their support for the Bill?

No.

Thank you, chair Members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Mid PeninsuLA Regional Open Space District. We are in support of this Bill. Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the room that would like to speak, add their support? Okay. Is there anybody in the room that would like to come up and be a opposition witness for two minutes? Welcome, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, Paul Gonzalez, here today on behalf of the City of Norco, also known as Horstown USA, in very respectful opposition to the Assemblywoman's Bill. The City of Norco is an equestrian oriented community where many of their residents keep horses at their homes and enjoy riding those horses through their communities. The residents have over 400 acres of parkland and one of the largest trail systems in the nation that they get to enjoy. The city has serious concerns on any type of regulation on horse ownership. They feel that horse manure is not a nuisance, but rather a minor inconvenience to having these beautiful working animals in our communities. The recent amendments expand the Bill to cover all animals, and it makes sense if you have a dog and clean up after your dog when they are done using the restroom. But we feel like it's asking a whole nother level for a horse owner to be able to do that when out riding their horses. Although this Bill is permissive, it's very easy and actually very typical for riders to cross jurisdictional boundaries when they're out on their trails. So they don't know when one enforcement starts, one enforcement ends so it becomes very complicated for the riders. And then it begs the question about public lands within city boundaries. Does it apply there? If they're riding in national forest areas or in state wilderness areas, could they be restricted there? So we feel this is a one size fits all approach that doesn't work for the City of Norco. And for those reasons, we're in respectful opposition.

I appreciate your testimony today. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition to the Bill that they'd like to come up and express such if not, we're going to go to the phone lines. Mr. AT&T operator, is there anybody on the phone lines that would like to either express their opposition or support for this Bill? And mind you folks calling in, it's your name, organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Thank you much, ladies and gentlemen. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to AB 233, please take this opportunity to press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. Just give one more reminder. If you're in support or opposition to AB 233, please press 1 0. Nobody is queuing up, Mr. Chair.

Okay, then we're going to bring it back to the dais. Do any of my colleagues have any questions? Do any of my colleagues have any questions or comments on this particular Bill? Do any of my colleagues know that I'm asking if there's any questions? Well, you know what? Then I'm going to make a comment. You know, I can't support this Bill and you know why? But no more than that. It's the issues with local government. Local agencies already have the ability and their ordinance systems, and you know that I know that to address the specific issues in their communities, just like in our community, it's more of the dog stuff than the horse stuff, although we do have some horses that are around. But it has never been a problem that the City Council has had to address because nobody really brought it to their, as something they wanted fixed. It's something I don't think we should be encouraging the state to get involved in that level of governance. And so I think it's kind of introducing ourselves into a level of governance that we don't really need to be introduced into. They have the abilities to do this according to the communities. For that reason, I want to not support. I'm not going to support.

I have a question.

I had asked four times. Senator Durazo, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for the author. Yes, I'm supportive, but I think that the representative Norco raised a couple of good questions, and I don't know if you've had those conversations as far as. Is there something. One in particular was not knowing where the lines are when you're. So if you could elaborate on that a little bit.

It's my fault.

Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to address some of what the proponent said and then even some of what my former colleague and. But still colleague and from the other house, Senator Seyarto, when it comes to this, as was noted from the opposition, that it is a permissive language. So if a city considers it a small, minor nuisance, it's not something they have to address. And if it's not a concern of their community, then they don't have to address it. Whereas in particular, it was a concern in ours. We did a county island, so to speak, within the cities. There's quite a bit of that in Solano, because we do value open space. There's quite a bit of county islands that separate cities or even within a city. And a lot of times, because we are 62% agriculture and open space and ranches, we do have horses regularly entering into the city, which is a beautiful and great and wonderful thing. There are several pictures of me. There's a picture of me as a kid on a horse. I love horses. I think they're grand and majestic. But we also found that on our safe routes to school, the horses were going there, and they were excrement. And because it was on improved surfaces, it doesn't dissipate, and we don't have a lot of rain. We had a lot of rain this last year, but that's not our norm in California, and so it doesn't dissipate quickly, and it does require us as a local government to clean it up. When we approach, in particular, regulating horse excrement, not all animals. When it caught to this Committee, the Bill prior to this Committee was just specifically related to horses. It was included for all animals to not erode the rights of other cities who had weighed in on this particular subject. But when we got into horses, we find that horses were considered transportation. And so because they're considered transportation, that is governed like a vehicle. And so we couldn't regulate in that space, so we couldn't even have the conversation, even though we were getting an outcry of parents related to a self rights to school and weren't able to come to an agreement with those bringing in the horses of them cleaning it up. And we didn't want to ban them. That was the only alternative. And we didn't want to ban, we want horses on our trails. We just wanted to deal with the issue of excrement. And we found that we couldn't. And that was the guidance that we got. In cities, especially small cities like mine, you depend heavily on your city attorney, and we contract out with a firm who apprised those contract services for numerous cities and so across the state, because they're based in Southern California, giving advice that we could not do that. And of course, we're not going to push that because we don't necessarily have the resources to fight a lawsuit and get into a legal battle of that. So we didn't have that discussion. And so this provides greater clarity. In particular, the original Bill related to horses, to say that if it is an issue, then of course, local government should be able to govern on that particular issue. Taking, for instance, in the City of Norco, they are one of the communities that is a horse town that also, the horses Association does put out a very extensive guidance that other associations across the state have looked to. They reference in that, like when you read all of the ones, they reference Norco's guidance for horse riders to be cognizant of the fact that excrement can be an issue on improved surfaces, and that they should, if possible, dismount, know, shift it off into unimproved surfaces, because it can be a benefit to unimproved surfaces or a trail that's not improved because it does get into the know all of that. Um, but if, for instance, Norco abuts a town where it is more than a nuisance and that community doesn't want to do it, then that community should be allowed to say, you can't come. In our community, on our surfaces, wherever surface, they decide that they don't want them to come, they shouldn't be able to do that. And that's the beauty of local control, is that it's based on the community's needs and the people who live in that community to determine what's best for them and talk to their representatives about what to do. But we felt like this discussion couldn't happen in every single city, and not every single city has the resources to get into a protected battle over a particular law as it relates to whatever issue it is, and particularly as it might relate to something that you might think is minor as the excrement of animals.

Yes. Mr. Dahle.

First, good to meet you. I haven't had the opportunity. I'm looking forward to getting some time with you. Obviously, I come out of local government for a long time, and I'm a farmer, and everybody wants to build their home and look at your farm and have that open space at the same time. Then they want to start telling you, as more people come in, how to actually operate your farm. Coming out of local government, I tend to like. One of the reasons I ran for the Legislature was I was tired of the state telling us how to do it. And I love local control. The real reason I want to get the question I have is the reason you're doing this Bill is because they don't have the resources to litigate if they actually pass do this themselves.

So in our particular area, we found that it wasn't clear in language as it specifically. Now the Bill deals with all animals now because that was the amendments that we accepted from the chair Committee of Consultants. Okay, so this issue came about with specifically horses, because horses are considered, they are the original vehicle, and so they are regulated by the transportation code. And so that is a state law. And so the only option that we found in precedents really was about banning. And there are several cities that did more than that, but our attorney disagreed with that. So if someone fight it, which we did have when we talked to the ranchers who were neighboring, they're in the county, not in our city. They traversed to our city when we talked to them. And this is a number of years ago of like, hey, this is the issue that we're having. We have parents complaining. Can you do something about it? They respectfully so with know it could get in a protective battle. And our attorney said we didn't have the ability to regulate in that space. And so because we were told we didn't have the ability to regulate that space. And that was consistent with attorneys in Solano County, other attorneys in Solano County then. And we knew that they were declined position. It could get in a protective battle because it wasn't clear in the language, even though other cities in the state had done that, a handful, not many, and they were larger cities. And so it was determined that we would. And at the time, we didn't know that there were other cities. We were just told by our attorney that we couldn't do it. And so we weren't going to get into a battle over something that we couldn't do. So we didn't even bring it up for discussion in to do that because this gives clarity as it relates to horses. And it also talks about because we don't want to prevent those cities that have laws on the books that don't call out horses, they call out all animals. We don't want to put something on the books that would limit what they were allowed to do. And so to be more expansive to ensure we're grandfathering in those cities that have weighed in, and it's a handful of them, not many, then that's why the language has been adjusted to what it is now.

And then the amendments that were in this Committee made it for all includes.

Every type of animal, a dog, a cat, a cow.

And then the policy would be to remove it or just get it off of the roadway.

No, the policy just clarifies that the cities can create ordinance, not that it's permissive. Language doesn't require them to. It just says that you can. So if you want to deal with this issue, it clarifies that you absolutely have the legal authority to deal with this issue for all animal excrement, which would include horses. A horse. Yes, as a reminder, it is permissive, does not require anything, gives you permission to have the discussion through a public process.

Senator Blakespear, did you have any? Okay. All right. Well, the other thing, one of the questions I have, you're aware of the California Constitution, Article 11, subsection seven, right? That kind of gives the communities their.

Their policing powers is what it's noted. But like I said, there is inconsistency across the state from attorneys, which cities rely on. And that is why we thought to fully clarify that it includes that. And that's why we, made it expansive.

You can close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I really appreciate the discussion that was had and giving a chance to clarify. Like I said, to me, animals are beautiful things and they are part of creation. And they provide so many benefits in so many ways, depending on the type of animal. Some are more useful than others. But at the end of the day, they all provide some level of mental health, whether they provide a utility or not. There's a level of mental health benefits that we get from being exposed to animals. And so every community should have them, want them, need them. But at the same time, we recognize that their excrement can be a nuisance and the person that owns the animals should be absolutely responsible for that. And that if communities finds that it's beyond a nuisance where they need to regulate, we want to make sure that every city or every county, a local agency, no matter how big they are and how many resources they are, no matter how small they are and very little resources, they are they know clearly what they can do by law and know clearly what should not be litigated because it's very clear in our state law that allows for them to do that. As noted for this particular Bill, it is permissive. If a city does not consider it an issue, a community does not consider it an issue, a county does not consider an issue. They do not have to regulate in the space. But if they do find that it is issue, it ensures that they have the full power to be able to do that. And that is what I believe is at the heart of local control, is making sure our cities understand the powers that they have and that they can exercise them freely without having to get caught up in unnecessary litigation. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much. I do need a motion if we're going to vote on this. All right, we have a motion by Senator Durazo, and this is a do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Go ahead and call the roll.

SenatorsCaballero. Seyarto no. Seyarto no. Blakespear. Blakespear. aye, Dahle. Durazo. Durazo aye, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener. Two to one.

All right, we're going to hold that open and then let's see. Next up, we have AB 910. This will be more fun.

I have 910 county auditors. You're right. Sorry, I had it out and I closed it. This is more fun. Yeah, I get funner as we go. This is number two is three. That's right.

I know Funner is not a word, but going to be a word today.

Go ahead with your. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your indulgence with three bills today. This is number two of the three. First, I would like to start by saying that I am accepting the Committee amendments to limit 592 to a three year pilot program within Contra Costa, Solano and Alameda counties. I thank the Committee staff for your work on this.

Now, AB 592 would authorize select counties to adopt an ordinance to regulate the transport of solid waste by nonfranchised solid waste haulers on public roads and unincorporated areas. Illegal dumping occurs when solid waste is discarded or placed on any property, either public or private, without proper authorization, and it has been a growing problem in California for many years. Violators assume there is a little risk because it is economically feasible. Law enforcement has no probable cause to pull over non-franchise haulers.

And district attorneys throughout California report having difficulty in prosecuting these types of cases. Materials that are illegally dumped range from household items such as mattresses, furniture, large appliances to other commercial businesses, items such as tires, hazardous waste, rock, concrete, asphalt and dirt. Illegal dumping disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities because that's often where illegal dumping happens, affecting their public safety, environmental quality and quality of life. As a result, by helping communities curb illegal dumping, this Bill would increase equity.

Now with me today to further discuss AB 549 and to answer any questions you may have is Kristian Lucas, the Assistant Director of Contra Costa's Environmental Health Division, and Contra Costa has been leading on the forefront of this for some time.

Welcome, Mr. Lucas. You have two minutes, if you can hold to that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee Members, My name is Christian Lucas. I'm the Assistant Director of Environmental Health and represent the County of Contra Costa's Health Services Department. As a longtime resident and public servant of the county, I have witnessed an increase in illegal dumping throughout the years, contributing to community blight, often disproportionately affecting the county's most disadvantaged communities such as Baypoint, North Richmond and many others. Unfortunately, it seems that illegal dumping only leads to more illegal dumping.

In 2017, to help combat the aforementioned issue, the county created a program to regulate the collection and transport of solid waste by nonfranchise haulers in the unincorporated area. The County Cell Services Department facilitates the nonfranchised Solid Waste Hauler Program, which requires haulers to obtain a permit, display a decal, and pay regulatory fees to cover the cost of program implementation. However, under current county ordinance, only solid waste haulers who collect their loads in the unincorporated areas of the county are regulated under this program.

The ordinance regulates both the collection and transport, as opposed to only transport, so that the county can collect regulatory fees to pay for the program and avoid running afoul of a provision of the vehicle code that states a permit fee cannot be charged for the privilege of using public roadways. Simply put, we currently have no good way to figure out if our ordinance applies to someone hauling solid waste in the county and thus no good way to enforce it.

By allowing a county to regulate the mere transport of solid waste by nonfranchised solid waste haulers and require a permit to operate on roads within the unincorporated area, this bill has the potential to greatly increase the reach of the existing program in Contra Costa County by both expanding its scope to all non-franchise haulers on county roads and making the ordinance easier to enforce.

If a non franchise solid waste hauler must obtain a permit or must obtain and display evidence of a permit simply to transport solid waste on roadways of unincorporated areas of our county. The ambiguity surrounding who is versus who is not doing so lawfully is removed. It also leads to a much simpler and easier to understand message for our haulers.

Passage of this bill would help to shore up the gains already made with the county's own local legislation to combat the ever-present reality of illegal dumping by ensuring that solid waste is not contributing to environmental decline in local neighborhoods, the public right of way, and countless other locations throughout our communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any other lead witnesses that wishes to speak? Are you speaking as a lead witness or just add on?

I'd like to speak as a lead witness, if that's possible.

Then you've got two minutes.

Thank you.

All right.

So, Mr. Chair, members, Monica Miller, representing the County of Alameda. First and foremost, I want to thank both the author as well as the Committee staff for working with us and allowing Alameda County to be amended into the legislation. In our county, we also face a similar situation, such as Contra Costa and other counties. And actually, we notice it not only nationwide, but worldwide. Alameda County has been really trying to get on the forefront with regard to trying to eradicate, educate, and enforce illegal dumping activities.

We worked with our now prior District Attorney, Marianne O'Malley, who was, sorry, that's Legislative Analyst Office anyhow. But District Attorney O'Malley, who was fantastic, and we did a pilot program and had some great success there in eradicating illegal dumping. We also do, Supervisor Miley's office puts together an illegal dumping conference every spring, which the assembly member was one of our keynotes this year.

And we were very appreciative of that, where we bring together leaders from all over the world, quite frankly, because we do it, we obviously did it virtually the last couple of years, and then this year we did it partially virtually, partially in person, and really had just a great response. And so we, again, thank the author for keeping us in.

We believe that we're going to have some really good results and be able to come back to the state after three years, actually, hopefully in two years, and demonstrate that, in fact, it worked. And it's something that I think would be beneficial statewide. So for these reasons, we would like to encourage an aye vote today, and thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions, should you have them.

Great. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room who'd like to add their support? Name, organization?

Amber Garcia Rossow, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right. We'll go to opposition. Are there anybody in the room who'd like to speak as a lead opposition witness? I'll give you two minutes. No, we have no takers. Okay, how about anybody who just wants to get up and speak against this fine Bill? No. Okay, we're going to go to the phone lines then. So, Mr. AT&T operator, if you can get anybody on the phone that would like to speak in opposition or support.

Remember, folks, it's just your name, your organization, you represent, whether you support or oppose the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to AD, I believe it's 592, correct?

Yes.

Program two to one receiver. There's program button. I pressed it in the ding. Yeah. This may allow me to do.

Please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And we'll begin with line 60, please. Go ahead.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

If there are any other participants that would like to queue up at this time. If you're in support or opposition to AB 592, please press 1 0. Not sure if he heard his line was open, but nobody else is queuing up, Mr. Chair.

Okay, so we'll take that person as a neutral anyway. Do we have anybody else on the dais? We'll bring it back to the dais now for any questions of the author. None. Okay, very good. You may close.

Thank you. I appreciate those who provided testimony. Kristian Lucas from Contra Costa and Monica Miller for representing Alameda. And definitely a thank you to Supervisor Miley, who has definitely been on the forefront of this issue as well in his own district and wanting to push this statewide, bringing it to the committee. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, this is do pass to the Senate Floor. Go ahead and call the roll. Oh, we need a motion. So moved. Senator Durazo.

Senator Caballero. Seyarto.

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Blakespear. Blakespear, aye. Dahle. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Glazer, Skinner, Wiener. Three to zero.

All right, that item is 3-0. So we're going to hold it open and then welcome Ms. Wilson for your third one. Assemblymember, it's nice to see you again.

Yes.

Let's go to AB 910.

So this is my last bill, and you'll be very happy that it has nothing to do with waste, whether it for animals or people.

It's a clean bill.

It's a clean bill. It's a clean bill. And so with that, I'm pleased to present AB 910. This sets clear requirements for individuals who want to run for County Auditor Controller by providing more information to the experience and educational requirements in Governmental Code Section 26945. Government Code Section 26945 includes the prerequisite education and work experience that is required to serve in the position of County Auditor Controller.

Portions of that section are extremely broad, which has caused conflict regarding the lack of qualifications for individuals who appear on the ballot. This bill would amend elections Code 13.5 by providing more direction to registrars to verify the background and claims of the candidates prior to placing their name on the ballot, which is extremely important.

We feel that individuals who are interested in running meet the qualifications and are absolutely prepared to fulfill the duties of County Auditor Controller, which is an essential, key accountability thing within a county and for a community. Now, my witness today is Matt Siverling from the State Association of County Auditors.

Welcome, Mr. Siverling. You have two minutes. Thank you.

I will not use it all, sir. I promise. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. I'd like to thank the Assembly Member for her very thorough presentation of the bill. I'll just add that auditors over the years have been a little bit frustrated with the subjective nature of some of the qualification sections that apply to elected County Auditor Controllers, which is the vast majority of those who serve in the state.

The bill makes an effort to thread that needle and tighten up and provide more specificity to some of those sections to make sure that people who are considering running for the office can indeed meet the qualifications and then demonstrate those qualifications upon request to an elections registrar or anybody that's looking into their background, again, before they're placed on the ballot and voters are considering them when they're casting their vote for their County Auditor Controller.

Because once they're on the ballot, it's too late to really put that toothpaste back in the tube and clean up that issue going forward. So with that, we ask for your support for the bill and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other lead witnesses? Yes. Or are you an add on?

I could probably do both. Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors in ardent support of the bill, particularly making sure that the person that gets on the ballot is qualified. Trying to fix it on the back end could lead to financial ruin. And in fact, in Humboldt County, they were very, very close because it took a long time to deal with the situation up there of someone who got elected that was not qualified.

So we just want to emphasize how critical it is that the verification occurs before the election even commences. The back end is messy. Every special district, city, school districts that are waiting for money from county auditors, they have to allocate those funds. Everybody has a stake in making sure that that person is incredibly qualified to hold the job. So we are grateful for your authorship and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Now we'll go to opposition witnesses. Is there anybody, I'm sorry. I didn't ask for additional people in the room that want to come up and add their support. This is just the me too section. You come up and tell us who you are, who you represent. No. Okay. Then we're going to go to the opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses for this?

Doesn't appear to be anybody in the room that just say, I don't like this bill, I want to oppose it. No? Okay. We're going to go to the phone lines then. AT&T operator, can you find some people on the phones that would like to speak on this and add weigh in whether they oppose or support only.

Thank you much, Mr. Chair, if you're in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 910, please press 1-0 at this time. One followed by zero. And Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up.

Well, in that case, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Ms. Blakespear, Ms. Durazo? we have a motion for the bill already.

I'll make a comment. I appreciate this bill and the testimony from your lead witness. She made some great points, and I think it's important, and I'm glad you're doing it. So I'm happy to support it today.

Very good. Alright. You may close.

Thank you. My very first job was in Solano County Auditor Controller's office. I was an Internal Auditor. Using my accounting and finance background, I had the opportunity for the very first time we had election, there was a person who ran, was not qualified and had issues that was pretty close. The good thing about it is the voters saw through it, and we didn't have to worry about that issue because it would have been very problematic. And that's why when I heard about this bill, I was very happy to do it because I had real firsthand experience, having served in the Auditor Controller's office in Solano County. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. And this is a do pass to Elections and Constitutional amendments. And go ahead and call the roll.

Senators Caballero? Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Three to zero.

Okay, we're going to hold that open. Alright, thank you. Okay. It looks like. Next on the file we have AB 281 by Assembly Member Grayson. Oh, thank goodness the Chair is back.

Very good. Well, you got halfway through the agenda.

Yes.

So where are we with you, Assembly Member Grayson? Oh, so you're getting ready to present. Very good. Well, the floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 281 is good governance measure that would apply 30 to 60 day timelines, depending on the size of the development, to the time periods that special districts have to weigh in and provide feedback on post entitlement phase permit that a local agency has deemed complete. Currently, only cities and counties are under specified timelines for reviewing post entitlement phase permits.

Existing law gives these local agencies between 30 to 60 days, depending on the size of the development, to complete review of these permits. However, these same timelines do not apply to special districts. This bill builds off of the work that was done in AB 2234 from last legislative session and would hold special districts to the same standards as these local agencies to help prevent costly delays and reduce barriers to housing production.

We worked closely with many of the special districts to ensure that the bill addresses the many different types of situations and also the different special districts, the needs that they have to go through in reviewing post entitlement phase for permits. The bill captures the incremental adjustments that may take place during the development process as certain factors may change throughout the different stages of development, allowing a special district to review and assess information as new factors may arise. And with me, I do have, through the Chair, testimony from Voleck Taing from Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Very good. Want to welcome you to the mic, please.

Good morning, my name is Voleck Taing, here for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The Leadership Group is pleased to voice our support for AB 281 and thank Assembly Member Grayson for carrying this measure. The Leadership Group is a business association that represents over 350 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues that affect economic health and quality of life in the Bay Area. California's housing goal was to build 180,000 new units each year to address California's housing crisis.

However, we have not achieved this goal since 2005, and we are currently attempting to catch up by addressing the problem within the housing development process. In 2022, the leadership group was proud to co sponsor AB 2234, as mentioned by the author, which would standardize the review process for obtaining post entitlement permits within a timely manner. For background, after cities approved plans and entitlements for a project, the next step for cities is to process the application for all building permits for the developer.

AB 2234 did not extend this process to special districts. Oftentimes, this step fails to occur in the timely manner for various reasons. Some of these reasons relate to staffing capacity or lack of efficient and timely communication between parties. Regardless of the reason, AB 281 would establish timelines for special districts to review a process and project when feedback is required for the issuance of a post entitlement permit by a local agency.

AB 281 is a straightforward solution to help prevent unnecessary delays and added project costs when building critical housing development projects throughout California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify and support here in Room 2100?

Morning, Madam Chair. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, Spur, Sandhill Properties, and Civic Well in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, as a proud co sponsor of this legislation, want to thank Assembly Member Grayson for his tireless work on streamlining and improving the housing development process.

Thank you.

Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium in support of this bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in room 2100 that would like to testify in support? Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll move on to testimony in opposition. Is there anybody who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and ask Mr. Moderator if you could queue up the support or opposition to this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you are in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 281, please press 1-0. One followed by zero. Line 84, please go ahead.

Madam Chair. This is Bob Naylor with Fieldstead and Company, that's Howard Ahmanson Jr., in support of the bill.

Thank you very much.

And anybody else, please go ahead and hit 1-0 if you're in support or opposition to AB 281. And we have no other participants queuing up at this time.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments. Senator?

Yes, thank you. I want to thank Assembly Member Grayson for this bill. It's a really important bill. And what I was curious about is how there's no opposition from any special districts who say we don't have the staffing. We need to hire special experts. Is there money? Can you just describe what was happening there?

A lot of meetings, a lot of collaboration, open office, open minds to what the special districts and their special needs are. And we worked very closely with them. This has been a multi-year conversation. So we were glad to get to a good landing spot.

Okay. But there's really no concession in there related to those things, right? I mean, they just came around to see it your way.

Well, it wasn't so much they came around to see it our way. It's just that we were able to work with them and make sure the language was something that they could work with and creating parity. And once AB 22, I believe it was 2234, passed, I think they were able to have enough time to be able to make the adjustments that they needed to be able to provide comments. Special districts don't actually deliver on issuing permits. They only provide feedback. So I think it was a lot easier for them to get to a good working place than it was for the locals, the local governments.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments, questions, concerns, or a motion? There is a motion. Assembly Member, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote

Very good. There is a motion. The motion is do pass to Housing. Please call the roll.

Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

Six to zero. We'll put that on call for the absent members. Moving on to file item number eight, AB 821. Assembly Member, floor is yours. Oh, I know. This is why I don't memorize numbers.

We planned it that way. So, AB. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. I do want to begin by accepting the amendments that have been proposed by the Committee. AB 821 is a simple bill that would help prevent delays in housing production. It actually helps facilitate the much needed housing that this state needs. This bill seeks to address instances where a local jurisdiction's general plan may be inconsistent with the local jurisdiction's zoning ordinances.

So under this bill, if there's a situation where an application is submitted where the general plan and the zoning are inconsistent, the local jurisdiction would have two options. They would either have to process the application for development and allow it to move forward, or amend the zoning ordinances for that development to make them consistent with the general plan within 180 days. Local jurisdictions are required by statute to have their general plans and zoning ordinances consistent with each other, but this is not always the case.

Inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning may happen for several reasons, including general plan updates, plan amendments. So currently, if there is an inconsistency, local jurisdictions must, by law, must amend their zoning ordinances to become consistent with their general plan within a quote unquote reasonable time. While this is the requirement, there is no defined timeline for what quote unquote reasonable time would be leading to delays for months and, in some cases, even years.

So the 180 day timeline that this bill would impose for rezoning is reasonable and consistent with the guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research that recommended up to 180 days for minor updates for zoning ordinances. AB 821 will help bring a clearer timeline to what is considered reasonable and will help prevent further delays in housing development. I do have, through the Chair, with me to testify, Michael Gunning.

Very good. Mr. Gunning, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, here on behalf of our sponsor, SPUR, as well as Civic Well. You know, a lot of you realize that I used to be with the builders. And one, of course, the challenges, of course, is trying to get local governments to move forward. I think Assembly Member Grayson has struck the right balance here, allowing cities the time, maintaining local control in the 180 days, but certainly pushing forward with projects that have been approved and do fit the general plan.

So we think this is a straightforward measure that does strike the right balance, similar to the last one, but certainly would encourage your support and happy to answer any questions that come up.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2100 that would like to speak in support? Want to invite you to come to the mIc, please.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium in support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Seeing no one, we'll go to the teleconference lane. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up individuals who want to testify either in support or in opposition of AB 821.

Thank you. If you are in support or opposition to AB 821, please press 1-0. And we'll go to line 84. Please go ahead.

Madam Chair. Bob Naylor, again, for Fieldstead and Company, Howard Ahmanson Jr. in support.

Thank you, sir.

Is there any other participants? I'd like to take this opportunity. Please press one, followed by zero to testify in support or opposition to AB 821. And nobody else is queuing up at this time.

Very good. Bring this back to the Committee for comments. Motion. There is a motion. Seeing no further comments. I appreciate the work that you're doing on these streamlining bills and allow you to conclude.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This really is a tool that empowers local governments when it comes to their attention that there is a discrepancy to be able to have the right to cure and fix it. Of course, this doesn't require them to go and redo the whole zoning plan. What it does is simply address that one particular parcel, which makes it a simple fix. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. That bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you, Madam Chair

Thank you very much. Members, I would like to take up the consent agenda items. They're file item number 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? There is a motion. Please call the roll.

Motion is adopted, consent calendar. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

Six zero. We'll put those on call for the absent Members. Assembly Member Dixon, are you the next one up? We are. You are now. If no one else shows up, then you're next. Let me just remind the Committee that we will go to noon today, after which we will be on break. And this room will be used by the Banking and Financial Institutions at 1:30. And so we're going to come back after that so we can get done what we can get done today, right now.

Otherwise we got to come back this afternoon. So, Assembly Member Dixon. You won the lottery.

Thank you, Madam, and good morning. And good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present on Assembly Bill 1270. Assembly Bill 1270 will allow the Lake Forest Successor Agency to receive redevelopment property tax revenues directly from the county auditor controller like other successor agencies. When the City of Lake Forest established the Lake Forest RDA and control over the project area, control over the project, the project area was subsequently transferred to Lake Forest.

The city, county, and agency entered into a transfer agreement with the county's successor agency retiring its debt in September of 2023 and no longer being eligible to receive redevelopment property tax dollars. This calls into questions the city's ability to still receive said funds as approved by the State Department of Finance. AB 1270 has the support of Orange County and the City of Lake Forest. My primary expert witness to speak in support of this bill is Orange County's County Counsel, Mark Servino.

Good morning. Good morning, Honorable Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Mark Servino. I'm a Supervising Deputy County Counsel for the County of Orange. I am testifying in support of AB 1270. And I'd like to thank Assemblywoman Dixon for introducing this bill. The purpose of AB 1270. Is to facilitate the dissolution of two redevelopment agencies. Which cover the same El Toro Project area. Which is primarily located within the City of Lake Forest. AB 1270 amends Section 34182.1 of the Health and Safety Code...

To, number one, allow the Orange County successor agency to dissolve, Notwithstanding the existence of the transfer agreement. And two, directs the Orange County auditor controller to directly allocate revenues to the city's successor agency, rather than through the county's successor agency upon the county's dissolution of its successor agency. AB 1270 facilitates the efforts of the county and the City of Lake Forest to dissolve their successor agencies while also ensuring that the City of Lake Forest successor agency continues to receive the revenues it needs to pay its enforceable obligations. Thus, the county urges you to support AB 1270. I'm available to answer any technical questions the Committee might have. Thank you for your opportunity to speak.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Is there anyone in Room 2100 that would like to testify in support? Anyone in support? Is there anyone that would like to testify in opposition here in Room 2100? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line. Is there anybody, Mr. Moderator, that is on the teleconference line that would like to speak either in support or in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you are in support or opposition to AB 1270, please press 1-0. One followed by zero. And nobody is queuing up at this time.

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee. There is a motion. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, aye. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

That bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. So I would like to put the call out for Assembly Member Gipson, Bonta, Ting, Friedman, Haney, Bains, and Soria, and Quirk-Silva. If any of you are within earshot, would be good to come over to Gov and Finance. If we recess then the bills may need to be heard some other day, so I don't want to have to do that.

Yes, let's go ahead and lift the calls on the bills that we've taken up so far. We'll start with file item number one, AB 2800. I'm sorry, 28. You can see I'm ready for lunch. No, it was a couple of bill zeros afterwards, and zeros are nothing. Right? So 28, AB 28.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Public Safety. Chair currently no vote. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dahle? Dahle, no. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Four two.

We'll put that back on call. Moving on to file item number three, AB, 233 by Assembly Member Wilson.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dahle? Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Four one.

Put that back on call for the absent Members. File item number four, AB 592 by Assembly Member Wilson.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

That bill is out. We'll put it back on call. File item number five, AB 910 by Assembly Member Wilson.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Dahle? Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Five to zero.

That bill is out, and we'll put it back on call for the absent members. Any sign... Assembly Member Haney, you are in luck, sir. I was getting ready to recess the Committee.

Alright.

File item number 17, which is AB 1114.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1114 will help my district build much needed housing by prohibiting appeals on approved post-entitlement building permits in the final hour. Right now, all housing developments go through a series of steps from the initial proposal to certificate of occupancy. And in most cities across California, the process of securing a post-entitlement building permit is an automatic action. This means there are no opportunities to appeal the permit once the project has already been approved.

San Francisco is one of the only local governments that does not have automatic approval for post-entitlement building permits. This is because the permits in San Francisco are discretionary, meaning they can file lawsuits to appeal even after this has been approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

This appeals process exacerbates San Francisco's already severe housing shortage, has already been dealt with in most other parts of the state, if not all, and creates huge challenges for us to be able to meet our housing goals as a city. It has received unanimous bipartisan support, and San Francisco is unique in many ways, and this is not one where we want to continue to be. We want to do our part in housing. So with me here today to testify is Voleck Taing from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Steven Stenzler on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.

Very good.

Hello again, Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The Leadership Group is pleased to voice our support for AB 1114 and thank Assembly Member Haney for carrying this measure. Housing affordability and equity are of critical concern to the well being of Bay Area communities and the continued economic growth of the Bay Area and California as a whole. AB 1114 would ensure that there is a ministerial approvals for all post entitlement building permits. So far, San Francisco have non-ministerial building permits.

This means all necessary permits and approvals to construct a project needs to conform with applicable zoning and building code requirements. This issue holds up our housing production and prevents us from meeting our housing goals. San Francisco is unique, as it is the only city where an individual can appeal a building permit after the project has been approved. AB 1114 is a straightforward solution which will help prevent unnecessary delays and added project costs in building critical housing development projects throughout California. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all income levels. I'll just echo the comments of my co-sponsor there and point out that recent San Francisco Chronicle article found that the average permit took 627 days to issue in San Francisco. So this is clearly an issue of importance for getting housing built in a timely manner. It's a good follow up to last year's AB 2234, and the Housing Action Coalition is proud to sponsor it and ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Very good. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support?

Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer, and Lange on behalf of Mayor London Breed of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support? Seeing none. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no one, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition, that would be great.

If you are in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. Line 48, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. Cornelious Burke with the California Building Industry Association. We're in proud support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

And nobody else is queued up.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions, concerns. There is a motion. Seeing no further questions. Assembly Member, you may conclude.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Housing. Senators Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Five to zero.

That bill is out, and we'll put it on call for the absent members. So you'll be presenting Assembly Member Ting's bill?

Yeah.

Okay. Very good. That is AB 783. File item number 15. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments on behalf of the author, which adds counties to the Bill. This is AB 783 on behalf of Assembly Member Ting, which will enforce existing law requiring all single user restrooms to be identified as all gender toilet facilities. Equal restroom access benefits everyone through increased safety, fairness and convenience. Restricting access to bathrooms disproportionately impacts transgender and gender nonconforming individuals, women and parents, and caretakers of differently gender dependents.

This Bill, original Bill 1732, passed in 2016 and required all single occupancy restrooms and businesses, government buildings and places of public accommodation. Compliance with the law is just a matter of changing the sign on a restroom door, and unfortunately, that is not happening everywhere. This will require cities to provide written notice to each business license to be designated as all gender. With me is Alice Ketzler from Equality California to testify on the item.

Very good. Just for clarification purposes, the notes I have indicate that the amendments are Comment number two and comment number three. The first one applies to counties, and the third one applies to cities and counties that don't issue business licenses.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Very good. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Alice Kessler. I'm here on behalf of Equality California. We are a co sponsor of AB 783, and we're also the original sponsor of Mr. Ting's legislation that created this law. I think it's a mixed bag as you go around the state, you'll see some businesses, some governments are doing a good job making sure to indicate that restrooms are all gender. But we can do better.

And that's the purpose of this Bill, utilizing the business licensure function of local government to make sure that business owners understand this is the law and it's pretty simple to comply with as well. So thank you to Mr. Ting for carrying it, Mr. Haney for presenting and we would encourage your aye vote in support Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify and support? Want to welcome you to the mic.

Noah Bartelt with ACLU California action support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in room 2100 seeing no one, we'll move on to opposition. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition in room 2100? Seeing no opposition, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Is there anybody on the line that would like to testify either in support or in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair, if you're in support or opposition to AB 783, please press 10. Let's go, line 48. I think they took themselves out of queue. If you'd like to re queue line 48, please press 10 at this time or anybody else that would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 783. And nobody's queuing up.

Very good. We'll bring this back to the Committee for a Motion. Comments, questions, emotion. Somebody. There is a motion. I'm sure Assembly Member Ting will be happy you made the motion. Seeing no questions will allow you to conclude.

Yes, respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Very good. Roll, please.

Motion is to pass this amendment to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators. Caballero, Aye. Seyarto, No. Blakespear, Aye. Dahle, No. Durazo, Aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener, Aye. 4-2

We will put that Bill on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. And thank you for stepping in for Assembly Member Ting. Assembly Member Baines, file item number 18. AB 1203. Welcome. Thank you. You ready? The floor is yours.

Awesome. Thank you. Chair Members, I am pleased to present AB 123. AB 123. Bill seeks to establish tax parity between breastfeeding and formuLA feeding. The Bill creates a sales tax exemption for breast pumps, pads and storage supplies. As a family doc, I am acutely aware of the benefits of breast milk. We know that breastfed babies have a lower risk of wide spectrum of illnesses ranging from ear infections and pneumonia to sudden infant death syndrome and leukemia.

Breast pumps are an essential tool to ease the difficult transition that parents face with returning to the workforce by allowing them to collect and store vital nutrients for future use. However, these pumps and related supplies can be pretty expensive, especially for Low income Californians. Compounding this financial burden is the imposition of California sales tax. Meanwhile, infant formuLA is exempt from this taxation.

Given the overwhelming benefits of breastfeeding and the financial burden of current tax on new parents, AB 123 asks that breastfeeding be taxed at the same rate as formuLA feeding. AB 123 enjoys support from a growing coalition including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Maternal and Child Health Access, California Catholic Conference, the California Breastfeeding Coalition, and the California Nurses Association. Here with me to testify in support, I have Jessica Thomas, a lactation consultant.

Very good. Welcome.

My name is Jessica Thomas. I am an IBCLC and I have served in California for the past nine years. I have two children that I breastfed and used a pump with. I've worked in hospitals, birth centers, private clinics and my private practice. In my position, I work with nursing parents on their breastfeeding journey. I have seen hundreds of patients and more than 75% of them need or should be using breast pumps to aid in their journey.

Currently in California, people who pump are required to pay sales tax on purchased breast pump equipment, while infant formuLA is exempt from this taxation. Breast pumps are necessities for nursing parents, especially for working moms that have been returned to the workplace and have chosen to breastfeed beyond the initial maternity leave period. Those who have little or no maternity leave for a variety of medical reasons, such as when infants are premature and or unable to latch. Breast milk also has several health benefits.

It can help protect babies against some short and long term illnesses and diseases, as well as the breastfeeding parent. Breastfed babies have a lower risk of asthma, obesity, type one diabetes, and sudden infant death syndrome. Research also shows that breastfed babies are less likely to have ear infections and stomach bugs. Keeping the babies healthy saves families and our health system money. I'm urging you to remove the unnecessary barriers for women and families who want to provide breast milk for their infant children.

As a professional working with nursing parents from many socioeconomic levels, this legislation will help California families. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support?

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Hi Kelly Macmillan on behalf of March For Dimes and Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Moving on to witnesses in opposition Is there anybody that would like to speak in opposition?

Hi, Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association. Unfortunately, in opposition due to the impact on Prop 98.

Thank you very much. Anyone else seeing none. We'll go on to the teleconference line. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support or in opposition on the teleconference line?