Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

So the testimony on the conference line is the MeToo testimony, which is your name, your organization, and your position. We're holding our hearing in O Street, obviously, room 2200. We do not have a quorum yet, so we're going to start as a Subcommittee. We have 27 bills on the agenda today, all of which are suspense candidates, and all of the authors have waived presentation, but we will allow public comment on each Bill as people are here, even though there are no presentations from the author before.

Obviously, we don't have a quorum. We're going to move on to the business today. One thing for those primary witnesses, we're not going to relitigate the policy merits of the Bill. We're here just to speak about the fiscal aspects. So please refrain from doing any policy conversations, if possible. We do have the Department of Finance with us today, and so we're happy to have Michelle here.

And we still don't have a quorum, but we're going to start out with our first Bill, which is SCA 6 Archuleta on property taxation, veterans exemption. It is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room on SCA Six to see if anybody wants to speak. There's nobody here who wants to speak in favor. And there's opposition. There's no opposition. Moderator, are you here?

We are here, Mr. Chair.

All right. Is there anyone who wants to enlighten us on SCA Six this morning.

On the phone? Ladies and gentlemen, to comment on SCA Six, press one, then zero at this time on your phone's keypad, Mr. Chair, we have no callers queuing up at this time.

We have no callers queuing up. So we have taken our opportunity. We'll come back to finance.

No file.

No file. So without a file and without a comment and without a question, we can't take an action because we're without a quorum. So we will wait till we have a quorum. We'll move on to SCA One by Senator Newman on elections, on recall of state officers. It's a suspense candidate. The author's way presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room and see if anybody wants to speak about SCA Two. Are you in favor of it? You may.

Is this where I come?

That's where you go. I'm sorry, SCA One. Excuse me.

Well, there's a couple today. It's kind of confusing. So which one are we on, Senator Portantino? Was it one or two? Because I heard both, and I want to be sure I'm accurate.

I made a mistake and I said SCA Two, and it's SCA One.

Okay, so we're on the Newman measure that would amend the Constitution.

Hold on 1 second. You have two minutes. I'm going to start the clock right now.

Two minutes?

Yes, you do.

Two minutes. And you're telling me to speak to the fiscal? And in the last elections hearing, all of you sat up there, whoever was on that committee, and complained about the cost of the recall. What about this temporary office building that we're in? That was $450,000,000? What about the $1.4 billion glass palace you're going to build because you demolished the annex? And you want to talk about fiscal? I could keep going, but I think you get my point. Changing the Constitution to it's a big deal.

I didn't know you were going to give me two minutes. I'm talking off the fly. I have that right. The First Amendment still matters, and this Bill is a garbage Bill. You know the people are upset. You know there's a reason we stood on street corners, in the smoke, in the heat, paying for childcare with money we don't have when we can't fill our gas tanks. And now you want to do a shoddy amendment to the Constitution? Wait until there's balance in the building.

Wait until you're not controlled by a pharma fascist supermajority because there's a reason people are upset. There's a reason they're trying to recall state officials. There's a reason they're trying to recall school board. They don't know the difference. Californians can't name the three branches of government, and you sit in here smugly at your chairs, not even making aye contact with us, and you want to glibly amend the Constitution.

And you want to tell me a displaced person whose children have been kicked out of school, a displaced person from a wildfire you're denying my kids education because of pharma fascist vaccine mandates that none of the other 49 states have brought about, and you think we're the problem? And you think you need to amend the Constitution with this shoddy Bill at this time, written by an elected official who has already himself been recalled.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to oppose SCA Two? Seeing none. I'm sorry? SA One. SCA Two is the next one. I looked down SCA one. Anyone else want to oppose SCA One? Seeing no one here in the room. Let's go to the moderator. Moderator, please queue up. Anyone support or opposition to SCA one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again on the phones. To support or oppose SCA One, press 10 on your phone at this time. We do have one in queue currently. We're going to line 36. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Linda Musser. I'm calling from Placer County and I strongly oppose this Bill. Please do not pass it. Thank you.

And one moment. Mr. Chair. We do have some others queuing up. We're going down to line 37. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Michelle. I'm from Orange County. I oppose SCA one. I'm a parent, a grandmother, a taxpayer. I'm also a Member of Perk, moms for America and Moms for Liberty. Thank you.

Line twelve, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Margaret Arader and I am calling in strong opposition. Thank you.

And line 43, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Carla Hinny. I live in San Joaquin County. I oppose SCA One and I plead with you, do not pass it.

Mr. Chair, we have no additional comments in queue.

All right, we've taken our oppose in opposition finance. Do you have a file?

No file.

We have no file. Hold on 1 second. We have a quorum. Madam Secretary, if you could establish a quorum.

Portantino Here. Senator Jones. Senator Ashby here. Senator Bradford? Senator Seyarto here. Senator Wahab here. Senator Wiener?

We have a quorum. So we're going to go back to SCA Six. Anyone have any questions there's? No questions or comments. So without objection, SCA Six, we'll move to the suspense file. We're going to go to SCA One, which we've taken public comment on, seeing no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, SCA One will move to the suspense file. Moving on now to SCA Two by Senator Stern on elections, voter qualifications. It's a suspense candidate.

The good author has waived presentation but we will open up public comment for support on SCA Two. So anyone wishing to support SCA two. Seeing no one coming to the microphone, we'll go to opposition of SCA Two. Is there anybody who would like to oppose SCA Two? This is your opportunity. You have two minutes, sir.

Good morning. My name is Mike and I'm with the Funky Fathers and the Who Own Your Body. Do the who own your body? If the who Own Your Body, then you don't own your body. And that makes you a slave organization. And I think this whole making younger and younger voting in an education system that has been overly run by the state and indoctrinating the children into mindsets that don't necessarily reflect the common...

If you could confine yourself to the fiscal aspects of the Bill, I'd appreciate it. This is a fiscal committee, not a policy committee.

Sure, I'm getting there.

All right. Thank you.

I'm getting there. So, for all of you in the education program who are going to indoctrinate our children, we don't want our funding going to that. We don't want the education going to that. We don't want the educational funding going to that. We don't want this Bill, period, because it shouldn't be on the board at all. We don't need children voting unless are they going to be brought into the military at 17 now, too? Is that what's going to happen?

Are we all going to lower the age of military consent. You can brainwash these indoctrinate these children in their schools so that they join the military to go over and fight proxy wars all over the world. I don't think that's what this committee would want to do. Right? You guys are about being very careful with the money that we're wasting all across the state. This is totally unacceptable. And that last Bill, too, which you didn't let me have comment for, is an outrage to everybody here.

This whole idea that you're going to inject somebody into the seat after someone is recalled is absolutely astounding. So I'm going to say this Bill should not be funded, period. Thank you. And don't let the children run the adults lives. Right. And don't have your adults in the education program. Try to indoctrinate the children into hating their parents.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Have a good day. Try to do better.

Anyone else here opposed to SCA two?

Hi, my name is Rhonda Murray. Oh, geez, sorry. I thought I turned it off. Anyways, my name is Rhonda Murray, and thank you for letting me speak today. I would like to oppose SC one and two. I know that SC One has already been heard for the children voting. I have a granddaughter that's 14. I mean, I have a granddaughter that's four. I have a grandson that's 23, and my 23 year old grandson lives at home still. Most of the kids do nowadays to be voting, and, like, one thing has a domino effect.

You vote at 17. Okay? So then you can go fight the war. You can already decide if you're going to be a boy or a girl at twelve years old. And I just think what's happening is totally unacceptable and everybody should be ashamed of theirselves for even bringing such a thing to the table. We don't get to vote on this, and unless we come down here and oppose it, we don't have a word.

You guys shut everybody up and have everybody's head spinning so much that nobody can even focus on what Bill is being heard today, tomorrow, or the next day. So with that, I would like both those bills opposed. I would like you to take heed to what I'm saying, and thank you very much.

All right. We've taken our two primary witnesses, so going forward, it's just name, organization and your position.

Well, I'm still Andrea Hedstrom. Although I'm not sure I said it the first time. And I represent a number of organizations, so I'll go ahead and list those. Like Mike. I'm with the who owns your body? Does the who own your body? If The Who Owns Your body, then that makes you a slave organization. I'm also with the organization Goat Farmers for Good Government. I'm also with the organization Angry Mothers Against Medical Fascist Tyranny and Poisoning Children. And that goes double for the Sex Change Drugs, because we're sick of it. We're sick of all of it. And you want me to be a me, too? Senator Portantino, we are just getting warmed up.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else seeing? No. Oh, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Cindy Decker, and I oppose both of these bills.

Thank you, Cindy.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go to the moderator. Support or opposition?

Currently have four in queue to comment on scat. If you have not already done so, press one and zero. At this time, we'll go to line 50. Go ahead, please.

Yes. Hi. My name is Stephanie Sala. I was county coordinator for Recall Gavin 2020. And I will once say again, this is our constitutional right.

All right, ma'am, if you could just say your position.

Why?

All right, we're going to go to the next speaker. All right, again, for those of you on the phone line, it's your name, your organization, and your position.

Line 52, go ahead.

Penny Harrington from San Diego County in opposition.

Line 54, please go ahead.

Yes, hi. This is Sharina Latch. Can you hear me?

Always.

Wonderful. Hi. Good morning, Senator Portantino. My opposition I'm in opposition of SCA one and yeah, thank you very much.

All right, we're on SCA two. All right, keep going moderator.

Line 36, please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Linda Musser. I strongly oppose this Bill. Strongly, strongly. Please do not pass it.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Margaret Arader. I am the mother of a 17 year old high school student and the mother of a 20 year old Marine who has incredible difficulty voting because the military is kept from voting. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

And we have three more. Line 48, go ahead, please. Line 48, go ahead.

Am I 48?

You're 48, yes. Go ahead.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Melissa Maganya. I'm a resident of Shasta County and I strongly oppose SCA One or, SCA two. Thank you.

Line 37, please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Michelle. I'm from Orange County. I'm a mom, a grandma, a taxpayer, and an avid voter. I also represent her let them breathe, Moms for America and Moms for Liberty. I oppose SCA two. Thank you.

And line 31, please go ahead. Line 31, go ahead, please.

Yes, I was trying to speak on a different issue. I was just trying to get on queue.

Okay, we'll release you from the queue. Mr. Chair, there are no additional commenters in queue.

All right, we've taken support. In opposition, we'll come back to finance no file. No file. Seeing no questions without objection, SCA two will move to the suspense file. Moving on to SCA three. Senator Niello on elections, initiatives and referendum. It's a suspense candidate. The author's wave presentation will open up public comment for support, seeing no one coming to the microphone. In support, we'll go to public comment for opposition of SCA three. Seeing no one coming to the microphone opposed. Moderator, we'll go to the phone line on SCA Three.

To comment on SCA Three, press one, then zero. At this time, Mr. Chair, we do have a couple queuing up here we'll go first to line 37. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. My name is Michelle. I'm from Orange County. I'm a mom, a grandma, and a taxpayer. I'm also a Member of Perk, Let them breathe, Moms for America and Moms for Liberty. I oppose SCA three. Thank you.

And line 20, please. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Abby King with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, and we support SCA three. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. No additional comments in queue.

All right. We've taken support in opposition of SCA 3. Finance? No file on SCA 3. No questions from my colleagues. So without objection, SCA 3 will move to suspense. We're going to move on to the Assembly bills now, starting with AB 1. Assembly Member McKinnor has waived presentation. It's on collective bargaining in the Legislature. We are going to open up the public comment with our primary witness in support. Anybody wants to support AB 1? Seeing no one. Come on, AB 1. This is opposition.

No, support.

Okay, go ahead.

Coby Pizzoti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians and a Member of the legislative staff from '96 to 2006 in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Silvia Solis Shaw. On behalf of the California Faculty Association. In support. Thank you.

All right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on my personal behalf in support.

All right, we've taken any other support. Now let's go to opposition on AB 1.

I would like to oppose AB 1.

Okay, thank you.

Shooting latch. Placer county. The pride of Placer County. We the people, oppose this Bill.

Good to see you in person.

Thank you. Nice to see you, too.

All right, keep coming.

Mike, from the Funky Fathers and the Who Owns Your Body? That's The Who Owns YourBbody. Who own your body, then you don't own your body, that makes you a slave organization. I don't support any bills that are coming out of this state.

All right, anyone else?

Hi, I'm still Andrea, and after 200 trips to this building oh, wait, it wasn't this building. It was the annex you tore down that I went into. But I still oppose all this stuff. Any Bill on principle, I'm going to oppose. Well, you have a corrupt supermajority in the building bought by pharma fascists. We're going to oppose everything. Fix the state and stop poisoning our children.

Thank you. Anyone else seeing? None. Oh, come on.

I'm Cindy Decker and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go to the moderator. Anyone on the line supporting or opposing? AB 1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To comment on AB 1, press one, then zero, if you have not already done so. And as always, if you find you've queued up for the wrong item, you can remove yourself from queue by pressing 10 a second time. We will go first now to line 42, please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer, former Assembly and Senate staff and strong support of this. Thank you.

And line 37, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Michelle from Orange County. I am a mom, a grandmother, and a taxpayer. I'm a Member of Perth, Let Them Breathe, Moms for America, and Moms for Liberty. And I oppose AB 1. Thank you.

And line 60, please go ahead.

My name is Stacey Albright. I'm from Calaveras County. I oppose all of these ridiculous bills. That are coming out of this building today.

SCA 1, SCA 2, SCA 3. All of them. Thank you. Strongly opposed. You're welcome.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. We have no additional comments in queue.

All right. Finance, no file. Seeing no questions without objection, AB one will move to the suspense file. AB nine three seven. McKinnor dependency, family reunification. It's a suspense candidate. The author's wave presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room for support. Seeing no run, rush to the microphone in support. How about opposition to AB nine three seven?

Hi, my name is Mike from Mama know the baby better than anybody else. Pharma ain't my mama. And we will not consent. And I want to know why there's no financial reports coming out of this committee hearing. Where is it?

Aren't we here to discuss it? How can you have a meeting when there's actually no finance being discussed here? It's outrageous. I mean, have you guys thought about this? What are we here for? How can you have a committee hearing on finance when there's no financial documentation going on? It's outrageous. Anyways, I oppose everything coming out of here because you're not doing it right. And also, the state's a fiction of your mind.

All right, our next witness.

Nicole Young, Placer County. I oppose this Bill.

All right. Anyone else want to be "me, too" testimony now.

Sharina Latch, Placer County. Unfortunately, I oppose this Bill.

Andrea Headstrom. My name hasn't changed. Despite the 200 trips, the two arrests and all the pharma nonsense that has the parents speaking out against this and everything else. And I'm still with goat farmers for good government. I'm still with who owns your body? Does the who own your body? If the who owns your body, then that makes you a slave organization. And in case there was any question no, we're not taking your shots.

All right, let's go to the phone lines. Come on up.

My name is Rhonda Murray. I oppose the Bill we're talking about. And as the gentleman discussed, I'm really new to this. This is a financial meeting. I worked for the state for 25 years, okay? And I would like to have a question answered instead of just a vote on yes or no or oppose yes or this when we should be talking about some other matters. So is there an open answer from anybody?

The point where you give your position. We've already had the primary testimony, so if you could stick to that, that would be great. So you oppose the Bill?

Yeah, I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Anthony.

Absolutely.

I'm Cindy Decker and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you, Cindy. All right, moderator, open up the phone line for support or opposition on 937.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, as always, 10. To queue up for comment. Remove yourself by pressing 10 a second time. We go first to line 21. Go ahead.

Nicole Wardelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Line 62. Go ahead.

Hello, are we on AB 937?

We are. We are. Tell us your name and your position.

My name is Melissa Maganya. I'm from Shasta County and I am opposed of this Bill that would prohibit state and local agencies from arresting or assisting with the arrest, confinement, detention, transfer, interrogation, or deportation of individuals...

We'll go to the next speaker. Thank you.

Line 37, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Michelle from Orange County. I'm a Member of Perk. Let them breathe. Moms for America. Moms for Liberty. And I'm a mom and a grandma and a taxpayer. I oppose this Bill.

At line 50. Go ahead.

Yes, this is Stephanie Sala. I am out of Sacramento County. I'm a voter. I am a grandmother, a mother and a great grandmother, and I definitely oppose this Bill.

Line 29, please. Go ahead.

Hello, this is Jordan Sosa on behalf of California Youth Connection and we are in support of AB 937. Thank you.

And line 63, please go ahead.

Hello. This is Margaret Arader of Sacramento County in opposition.

Mr. Chair, we have no additional comments in queue.

All right. We've taken support in opposition of 937 with no questions from my colleagues without objection. That will go to suspense. Oh, I'm sorry. Finance. I forgot you that time.

That's okay.

See, I am not perfect.

It's okay.

For the record, I am not perfect. Finance.

Michelle Perrault, Department of Finance. We're currently opposed to the Bill. We believe it would result in unknown annual General Fund costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands, to low millions of dollars to support increased administrative workload for the county welfare agencies to provide the additional months of family reunification services, depending on future court findings and caseload.

Thank you for that. I will not make that mistake again. So, seeing no objections, without objection, AB 937 will move to suspense. Just for everyone listening and here with us, I'll just walk everybody through the procedures of the committee. First of all, all, the fiscal analysis is available prior to the hearing. You can get it online. There's copies in the hall as well. So if you want to read the fiscal analysis that the committee's prepared, it's there.

If you're interested in the fiscal as far as the testimony for the committee goes, this is a fiscal committee we're not talking about the policy merits that we've already gone through the policy committee, and some of these bills have been double referred and actually gone to more than one policy committee. We're confining our comments to the fiscal, so I'd appreciate that. With regard to the public comment process, typically primary witnesses arrange their primary witness testimony ahead of time.

And typically, if you haven't done that, most chairs will not let people do primary testimony that haven't done prior arrangement. I'm actually being more open and letting the first two speakers be primary testimony folks. So please respect that I'm actually being more accommodating than I need to be, because that's the standard practice. So the first two witnesses are primary witnesses. I will give them up to two minutes each. After that, every subsequent witness, its name, organization, and position.

We also have a policy that primary witnesses cannot be on the phone line, they have to be in person. Which is why I ask the people on the phone to confine their comments to their name and their position. And so please be respectful of that process. And as I said, we're being more open than we need to be. And I try to accommodate the folks who spend their time to come here.

They should have the opportunity to be respected and heard, but please try to keep your comments on the fiscal. With that, we're going to move on to AB 1028 McKinnor, which is a reporting of crimes mandated reporters. The author has waived presentation. It is a suspense candidate. We will open up with our primary witnesses in support. So if there's support, come on up. I see no one coming to support. I thought there were support witnesses. Okay, there are no support, we'll go to opposition.

Hi, my name is Laura Brignon, and I'm speaking on behalf of the California state sexual assault forensic examiners. The goal of AB 1028 is to decrease the burden of domestic violence to the state, especially financially. But unfortunately, the burden that it takes away from the state, it puts on the shoulders of the survivors themselves. So the impact of domestic violence on survivors leads to a 50% increase in short and long term health care and mental health costs.

It leads to associated with an increase in substance use disorder, a lower utilization of the social services and support programs that are there to help them have a safer life. It results in educational disruption for all family Members, housing instability for all family Members, and lost productivity and employment instability. If AB 1028 passes as written, we expect an increase in domestic violence homicides, because when Kentucky passed a similar law, DV homicides went up by 73%.

Keep in mind also that over 50% of mass shootings are domestic violence related, like the one in Orange County last week. This Bill would make access to victim of crime compensation funds virtually inaccessible to patients that choose not to report and it will make existing sexual assault services worse by eliminating the funded mandate for in person advocacy, thereby dismantling the Sexual Assault victims Bill of Rights.

CalSafe urges you to oppose this Bill as written and allow us to work together to create more thoughtful and nuanced language that will maintain this needed infrastructural support for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors while honoring their agency and their own medical care. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition?

Morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Ryan Sherman registering opposition on behalf of the following law enforcement organizations: police officer organizations of Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, California reserve peace Officers Association, Upland, Santa Ana, Burbank, Murieta, Arcadia, Riverside, Nevada, Fullerton, Culver City, the Riverside Sheriff Association, Monterey County deputy sheriff association, Placer county deputy sheriff association. All oppose 1028 which would eliminate mandated reporting of domestic violence incidents by medical staff, except for firearms injuries.

The current law is a safety net for victims of domestic violence when their abuser is so controlling that they don't want to call for help themselves. Our laws recognize that without intervention, violence, often escalates in both frequency and severity, result in repeat visits to healthcare systems or death. Regrettably, 1028 eliminates physician mandated reporting for any physical injury due to domestic violence, except for cases, as I say, that result from injuries from firearms.

This means that domestic violence victims who are abused, bruised, attacked, stabbed, strangled, tortured, or maimed or injured...My apologies, Mr. Chairman. We are concerned about the costs that will result in more law enforcement investigations and public safety impacts as a result of increased victims, and it's already one of the most dangerous and underreported crimes. And we're concerned that there will be more victims harmed while abusers are being protected from justice. For these reasons, we oppose 1028. Thank you.

And I notice you love listing all those police departments in my district every time you give your list.

Strange coincidence.

Strange coincidence. Thank you. And let everyone know I admonish the cops to keep it on the fiscal, too, not just the general public. Coby, come on up. You're now in the "me too" part.

Yes, I am, sir.

Thank you.

Coby Pizzotti, on behalf of the Californian Association of Psychiatric Technicians and our 12,000 licensed psychiatric nurses in the state in opposition.

All right. Any other opposition? Now, again, it's name, organization, and position.

Sharina Latch, Placer County, with CPU union, and strong opposition of this Bill. Thank you.

Nicole Young. Adult child of a domestic violence survivor in strong opposition. Thank you.

Coming to the microphone or just moving chairs? All right. Just moving. All right. Keep coming.

My name is Rhonda Murray, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Cindy Decker from Sacramento County, and I oppose this Bill.

I'm Mike. I oppose this Bill. Keep it short this time.

I'm still Andrea, and I oppose this Bill.

All right. We've taken our support and our opposition. Let's go to the phone. Line to see if anybody wants to speak in support or opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently eight in queue. We'll go first to line 66. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Dr. Rachel Robitz. I'm a family medicine and psychiatry physician and I am in strong, strong support of this Bill.

Line 38, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sadia Khan representing Family Violence Law Center, serving all of Alameda County in strong, strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 27, please go ahead.

Taylor Jackson with California Health Plus Advocates. We represent the over 1200 FQHCs and clinics in the state. We're in strong support.

Line 31, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Brenda Villanueva with the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the National Institute on Partner Violence. We are a co sponsor and in strong support for AB 1028. Thank you.

Line 77, please go ahead.

This is Carla Hinny and I strongly oppose SB 1028 and the funding of the Bill. Thank you.

Line 50. Please go ahead.

It's a little late for the rooster. Shouldn't it be early?

Everybody's talking, so it's hard to hear. Did you say 50?

Yes, ma'am. Your line is open, go ahead.

Okay. This is Stephanie Sala, a volunteer for Casa de La Madres in San Francisco for domestic abuse on women. I strongly and definitely oppose this Bill.

Line 61, please go ahead.

Good morning. Kasha Williams. I'm a Member of California Parents Union and I'm calling in opposition to AB 1028. Thank you.

Line 22, please go ahead.

Jonathan Wicks LCSW. On behalf of YWCA San Gabriel Valley. In strong support of AB 1028.

We have had some more queue up. We still have three left in queue. Line 37, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Michelle from Orange County. I'm a mom, a grandma and a taxpayer. I'm also a supporter of Crime Survivors Organization and I oppose this Bill.

Line 24, please go ahead.

Good morning,Chair, Members. This is Jody Dang calling on the behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stefan in opposition of AB 1028. Thank you.

Line 63, please go ahead.

Is that me that's you queued up. And removed your off and came back? So line 63, you're good to go.

Sorry. Well, you didn't get no one ever gave me a number. Okay, so I am in opposition. Thank you.

And line 79, please go ahead.

Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Ruth Rivera, I am with the East Los Angeles Women's Center and we are in strong support of AB 1028.

Mr. Chair, we have exhausted the queue.

All right, in that case, we're going to come back to finance.

No file.

Who did they place on 937 in 1937? They placed who knows? Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln. And the third one was Thomas Jefferson. Is it Roosevelt on there, too? I don't know. I just know what this said. In the 150th anniversary, they placed Lincoln. So that was related to 937. All right, moving on to 1112 McKinnor: Foster Youth. It is a suspense candidate. The good authors waive presentation. We'll open up public comment in this room for support. Seeing no support, how about we go to opposition of 1112 on Foster Youth? Come on up.

No file. So without objection, I don't see any questions, we will put 1028 on the suspense file. I was remiss in that I actually had questions related to AB 937, because on 937 was 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, they placed an additional head at Mount Rushmore. So who are the three busts that are at Mount Rushmore? One's easy Washington. Right? Who would be the other two?

Yeah, I'm Mike with Who Owns Your Body? Do the who own your body? The who own your body? Then you don't own your body and that makes you a slave organization. And I'm going to reclaim my time right now and I'd like a no in everything that you guys are speaking about today. And then I'm going to move on with my day and hope you guys have a beautiful day and try not to bankrupt the state and ruin the people and their whole mindset. Thank you guys. Have a beautiful day.

All right, next speaker in opposition of 1112. No one come to the microphone. We'll go to the phone line for 1112.

Ladies and gentlemen, to queue up with comment for AB 1112, press one to zero and we're going out of line 37. Go ahead, please.

Hi, good morning. This is Michelle from Orange County and I oppose AB 1112.

Line 77, please go ahead.

This is Carla Heune and I strongly oppose AB 1112.

And line 50, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Stephanie Suela and I oppose AB 1112 strongly.

And line 62, please go ahead. 62, go ahead, please. Mr. Chair, we have no additional commenters in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 1112.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1112. We would note that there's likely unknown annual General Fund costs in the high hundreds of thousands to the low millions of dollars to support the expanded eligibility for the expectant parent supplemental rate payment. In addition, we believe there could be additional one time automation costs General Fund in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars to update the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System. We would note, however, that we believe the operations workload as a result of the Bill are likely minor and absorbable.

All right, see no questions from my colleagues without objection, AB 1112 and move for the suspense file. Moving on to AB 1310. McKinnor on sentencing, recall and resentencing, the suspense candidate, the author's waive presentation will open up public comment for support in this room. We have no one coming to support. Do we have any opposition on 1310? Come on up and confine your comments to the fiscal.

I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ryan Sherman, again with the Riverside Sheriff Association opposition and also in opposition on behalf of the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada Palace, Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, upland, California reserve Peace Officers Association and Deputy Sheriff Association of Monterey County and Placer County. We're concerned about the fiscal impact of this Bill and the increased societal costs of early release of incarcerated felons convicted of violent firearms crimes. And for those reasons, we're opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

Any other opposition seeing oh, go ahead.

Hi. My name is Rhonda. Murray. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Young, Placer County, in opposition.

I'm Cindy Decker from Sacramento County. I oppose this Bill.

Andrea Hedstrom, opposed.

Sharina Latch, Placer County CPU union Member, and we oppose.

All right, seeing no other opposition moderator let's open up the phone line on 1310.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we'll go first to line 62. Your lines open. Go ahead, please. Line 62, your number ends at 6904. That is you. Line 62, go ahead, please.

Good morning. Melissa Maganya from Shasta. Opposed.

And line 77, please go ahead.

Carla Hinny from San Joaquin. I oppose 1310.

Line 71, please go ahead.

This is Jasmine Ramirez, concerned citizen of Clary County, and I strongly support AB 1310.

Line 50, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Stephanie Sala from Sacramento. County, and I strongly oppose 1310.

Line 37, please go ahead. Line 37.

Oh, I apologize. Hi. This is Michelle from Orange County. I'm a supporter of the Crime Survivors Organization, and we oppose AB 1310.

Mr. Chair, we have one more queuing up. It'll be just 1 second. Line 87, please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support of AB 1310.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no additional comments in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance.

No file.

No file on 1310. Seeing no questions without objection, 1310, we'll go to suspense. Ms. Ashby, do you want pop culture, tech or science? What do you want?

Gosh. Let's try pop. They all sound bad. Go ahead.

Pop culture?

Sure. All right, gentlemen, it's an important question.

Yeah, help me out here.

What was it in the video game released in 2009, Angry Birds, what color are the pigs in the game?

Green.

All right, see, you got that. All right. Moving on to . . . that was 1310. Moving on to AB 14. Without objection, 1310 moves to the Suspense file. AB 1418 McKinnor: Tenancy local regulations, contact with law enforcement or criminal convictions. It's a suspense candidate. The author has waived presentation and we will open up the public comment in support of 1418. With no one at the microphone. How about opposition to 1418? Seeing no opposition at the microphone, we'll go to the phone line on 1418.

To comment on 1418, press 1-0 at this time. You can always remove yourself from queue by pressing 1-0. Again, we do have one in queue and two more coming. We'll go to line 21.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Line 20, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Abby King with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, and we support this Bill. Thank you.

Line 37, please go ahead. Line 37 is taking themselves out of queue. Line 87, go ahead, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're proud co sponsors of AB 1418.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no additional comments in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 1418.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1418. We understand that there's at least 147 cities and counties that would have ordinances that they would be required to repeal or amend pursuant to the Bill. Assuming an average repeal or amendment costs in the range of $1000 to $5,000 each, this Bill would result in state mandated reimbursable costs of 147,000 General Fund to 735,000 General Fund. However, it's not clear if the costs to change ordinances could be higher.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Seeing no questions from my colleagues, without objection, 1418 will go to suspense. Ms. Ashby, since you did so well on that last pop culture question, in Friends, what is Ross and Rachel's daughter's name?

Oh, can I lifeline Brianna.

Brianna gave you is it Emma? Emma. All right.

I didn't know that one.

She got that one. 1418 moves to suspense without objection. We'll move on to AB 1628 on Microfiber filtration. The author's wave presentation will open up for public comment with support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, again, this time on behalf of AB 1628, co sponsors Ocean Conservancy, Five Gyres Institute and The Nature Conservancy in strong support of phasing in this science based standard that's been recommended by the Ocean Protection Council's statewide microplastics strategy. Thanks to your leadership on that, Mr. Chair, we are joined by dozens of supporting environmental organizations, sanitation agencies, brands like Patagonia, and nearly 30 leading scientists from across the country.

The cost to the state is low and it pales in comparison to the cost imposed on the environment and human health of continuing to allow the release of microfibers from laundry machines into wastewater only to end up on lands and in the ocean. We urge your support. Thank you.

All right, before you go, what year did Microsoft come out with the Xbox?

1990? ...I confess not to not be a big Xbox player, but Angry Birds, I had that one.

All right. But you get points for trying. All right, come on.

Hi, my name is Suzanne Hume, I am the Educational Director and founder of Clean Earth 4 Kids in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Anyone else in support of 1628? How about opposition of 1628? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Kevin Messner. I'm the Executive vice President, chief policy officer of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. There's a number of problems with this Bill. I'm going to stick to the fiscal costs and just want to address two issues. One is the cost of public health. These filters are going to be collecting hair, other if you have babies and washing diapers, it's a public health situation with bacteria buildup. So that's one thing that you might want to consider with the California Public Health Department.

The CDC stated contaminated textiles and fabrics often contain high numbers of microorganisms from body substances including blood, skin stool, urine, vomitus and other body tissues and fluids. So you might want to consider that.

As you're looking at I've not heard a fiscal reference.

Yeah, fiscal interest of public health, implications of the fiscal cost. Second, fiscal impact. These filters could almost double the cost of opening price point clothes washers, especially those in dorms. In the university system, filters can cost up to $300 plus about $500 to change the filters again with high bacteria in various settings and laundry mats and homes. So there's a number of other problems with the bills but I'll stop there with those two cost implications and urge your opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed to 1628? Seeing? No one else? Let's go to the phone line on 1628. Support or opposition?

Thank you Mr. Chair. To comment on 1628 press one, then zero, if not already done. So we do have one in queue currently. Line 62 please go ahead one moment. Line 62, go ahead and queue up again. 62 press 10. There we go. All right, you may go ahead now.

Opposition. How about we talk about the fiscal burden that you're going to lay on California?

All right, we're at name, organization and position please.

Thank you. Opposed.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. We have no additional comments in queue.

All right, come back to Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1628. We would note several state departments, including Department of General Services, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and both the California State University and University of California systems could be impacted by the Bill to the extent that the machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029 cost more than those that the state entities would otherwise purchase. We would note the Bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown but potentially non absorbable amount.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Seeing no questions from my colleagues without objection, 1628 move to the suspense file. Moving on to Assembly Member Friedman AB 7 transportation planning project selection process. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up a public comment right here in this room on AB 7. With no rush to support, how about we go to opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Micheli. I have a question just for you, since you know lots of obscure things. The best selling novel in the U. K. in the decade 2000 to 2010, what was the best selling novel in the UK? I figured I'd give you a softball.

Okay. How about The Da Vinci Code? The best selling novel in I loved it. How about that? All right. Anyone else opposed to AB 7? Seeing no one else come up, let's go to the microphone for support or opposition of AB 7. Oh, moderator. What did I say? Microphone. I meant to say telephone. Let's go to the telephone.

That was a softball.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Once again, to queue up, if you've not already done so, press one, then zero. We do have six in queue currently. We're going first to line 30. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Melanie Morelos on behalf of the Greenlining Institute in strong support. Thank you.

Next we go to line 41. Please go ahead.

This is Zak Accuardi with NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, in strong support of AB 7.

On line 62. Please go ahead.

Sonya, South County, big government. No.

Line 44. Please go ahead.

Good morning, this is Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning Conservation League, in support.

Line 32, go ahead.

Yes, this is Nick Ratto. Yes, this is Nick Ratto, 350 Bay Area Action in strong support.

Line 91. Please go ahead.

Andrew Saul, Riverside County Transportation Commission in respectful opposition.

We have three more. Line 107, please go ahead.

Yes, I was calling to oppose the SCA or AC 1.

Thank you, thank you.

Line 20. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. This is Abby King with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and we respectfully oppose this Bill.

Where's Stewart?

Australia.

We have to start a new meme on where's Stewart? He's the Executive.

Line 108, please go ahead.

Definitely oppose SCA One.

We're on AB 7.

Mr. Chair, we have no additional comments in queue.

All right, moderator, before you go, what planet was demoted in 2006 from a planet to not a planet to the planetoid?

Pluto. Yes, sir.

Pluto. There you go. See that? The moderator knew the answer. Planetoid. Even he got extra credit. Exactly. I knew that moderator was smart. All right. We'll come back to finance on AB 7.

No file.

No file. Any questions? No. Without objection, AB 7 will go to suspense. AB 8 ticket sellers again. Assembly Member Friedman's waived presentation. We'll open up the public comment and see who wants to support AB 8. Seeing no one here in support, how about opposition AB 8? Seeing no opposition, let's go to the phone line for support or opposition of AB 8

On the phones for AB Eight to comment, press 1-0, please. And, Mr. Chair, we have nobody responding for phone queue.

All right. Finance.

No file.

No file on AB 8. No questions. Without objection, AB 8 will move to suspense. AB 645 Friedman: vehicle speed safety system pilot program. It is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. Looks like we have supporters lining up, so come on forward.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Niccolo Deluca on behalf of the City of Oakland in strong support. Thank you.

My favorite first name, Niccolo.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Glendale, one of the six co-sponsors in strong support of the bill.

One of my cities.

Good morning. Stephanie Shraddha on behalf of the City of San Jose and Mayor Matt Mahan in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Silvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of City and County of San Francisco, Mayor London Reed, one of the cosponsors of the bill, and also speaking in support on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, the City of West Hollywood, the City of Santa Monica, and also on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

You want a question?

Sure.

What year was the verb 'to Google' added to the dictionary?

Why would anyone know that?

We're in the 2000s.

2002.

2006, actually. Close. Alright.

Good morning. Myda Garcia on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments in support.

Alright. Now we're going to go to opposition of AB 645.

This is written by Dalma Roman. I'm still Andrea Hedstrom. From the pages of 1984 to the screens in our pockets today, the warnings of George Orwell's idea that Big Brother is constantly watching you have never been more apparent. While it has been nearly 70 years since Orwell penned this dystopian novel of a chilling depiction of a totalitarian society of which spying on people and sending them automatic driving tickets constitutes a totalitarian government.

And you're going to spread this to the rest of the state, so it's going to cost us even more money?

I'm just going to ask you to speak to the fiscal aspect.

You keep asking that, and I keep answering it in my own way, and it doesn't seem to penetrate your brain, Chair Portantino. Why should I be the one having to justify you spending my money?

Because this is a fiscal committee. It's not a policy committee.

And you laugh at the people, and you trivialize us by playing trivia. And you want to spy on us with cameras?

Thank you. We'll go to the next speaker.

My name is Rhonda Murry. I oppose this bill. Am I the second? First or second?

Yes, you can be the second. Go ahead.

Okay. For the fiscal impact, you place tickets on everybody that unless the cameras are calibrated at a certain time, they're not even accurate. And that costs the people that are struggling right now in the crisis that we have in California, I mean, 50 percent of the people have already moved. Do you want the rest of the people to move? I mean, you have to make over 15 million dollars to get taxed. There's another law coming out that you guys are trying to tax people. We have been struggling.

We have all been through a pandemic that nobody has ever been through in their lives. And let's just add more. Add more and add more. Do you guys really want the purge to happen here? Because it's really getting close, and that has everything to do with fiscal. You say, 'just keep it to fiscal.' It all has a domino effect. You can't have one without the other. Okay? Thank you very much.

Thank you. And thank you for keeping your comments confined to the fiscal. Alright, we've had our two primary witnesses. We'll go to our #MeToo testimony, which is name, organization, and position.

Nicole Young, Placer County. Opposition.

Sharina Latch, Placer County, CPU Union Member, and opposition. Thank you.

Cindy Decker, Sacramento County. Opposition.

Alright, any more opposition in the room? Seeing none. Let's go to the microphone for support or opposition of microphone--telephone. Why do I keep saying microphone? Similar word. Alright, moderator, microphone, telephone, the people online.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently 17 in queue and building. We'll go first with the line number--let's see, just one second. Line number 118, go ahead please.

Hi, Kathy McBride on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District.

Line 119, please go ahead. Line 119.

Hi. This is Katie Angotti. I'm calling from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency in support of the bill.

Line 122, please go ahead. Line 122, go ahead.

Oh, sorry. San Francisco Bicycles Collision. Support.

Line 124, please go ahead. One moment. Hey, line 18, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair. This is Mark Buscovich on behalf of Streets For All calling in support of AB 645 and then also apologies I missed 87, the previous bill. Thank you.

Hey, Mark.

Line 34, please go ahead.

Patricia Fargas, co-chair of Faith for Safer Street which houses about 800 church congregations in Los Angeles, also Vice President of Baptist Ministers Conference holds about 1000 chairs--I mean churches--and we support AB 645, which we've had five deaths. Thank you.

Line 46, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Damian Kevitt, Executive Director of Streets Are For Everyone, in strong support of AB 645.

Line 47, please go ahead.

Topher Mathers with Active San Gabriel Valley calling in support for AB 645. Thank you.

Line 53, please go ahead.

Hi, Chris Miller on behalf of South Pas Active Streets in South Pasadena in strong support of AB 645. Thank you.

Line 58, please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and the Alameda County Transportation Commission in support. Thank you.

Line 62, please go ahead.

Melissa Magana, Shasta County. I'm appalled at the trivia and the lack of decorum from this chair regarding these bills. It's atrocious. I just have to say, more people are going to listen and we are going to speak our voices. They need to be heard, but you need to take it more seriously.

Line 68, please go ahead.

Hi, Cassady Davidson. I'm the owner of Davidson Bike Law, a law firm. A human life is worth more than any money, so I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Line 73, please go ahead.

Hi, Mike Chen with advocacy group Streets for People, Bay Area. In support of AB 645.

Line 80, please go ahead.

Good morning. Council Member Pam Foley from the City of San Jose in strong support of AB 645.

Line 83, please go ahead.

My name is Dana Galbraith; I'm a registered trauma nurse and I am strongly in support of AB 645.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, the queue has grown as we've gone along here. We still have 15 in queue. Line 84, please go ahead.

April Price, member of Streets Are For Everyone, in strong support of AB 645.

Line 86, please go ahead.

Kristen Weiss with Streets Are For Everyone, in strong support of AB 645.

Line 88, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Michael Brodsky of Santa Monica Spoke, a pedestrian and bicycle advocacy group in Santa Monica, and we strongly support AB 645.

Line 92, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Gina LeBlanc. I'm a bereaved mother from San Jose and a member of San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets in strong support of AB 645.

Line 98, please go ahead.

This is Amy Thomson from TransForm for in support.

Line 99, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Kylie Rose Pierce, resident of Los Angeles. I'm in strong support.

Line 39, please go ahead. Line 39.

Hi, good morning. My name is Cindi Enamorado and I'm in strong support. I'm a grieving sister and I lost my brother this year in February, 27-year-old Raymond Olivares, civil engineer.

Line 116, one-one-six, go ahead please.

Hello. Paul Wormer, a San Francisco pedestrian, and that's why I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 120, please go ahead.

Hi. Hello? Hi, this is Jane from Los Angeles, and I'm a mom of two girls and I'm in strong support of AB 645.

Line 121, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Evan Oravec calling from Walk San Francisco, one of the bill sponsors, and we strongly support.

Line 125. Please go ahead.

Hello. This is Carol Brownson from San Francisco, a mobility device user, and I strongly support AB 645. Thank you.

Line 126, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are in strong support of AB 645. Thank you.

And we have three more. Line 127, please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Laura Keenan. I'm co-founder of Families for Safe Street, San Diego, and a cycling widow. And I'm calling to support AB 645.

Line 133, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. This is Mark Watts representing San Francisco County Transportation Authority, whose board members are very pleased that the city is nominated in this bill. And we are in strong support of AB 640. Thank you.

Line 136, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Eric Rozell in San Francisco with the Tenderloin Traffic Safety Task Force and we're strong support of this bill.

And line 142, please go ahead.

Hi, Angela Fung from Boyle Heights, safe figure, and strong support for Bill AB 645. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There are no additional comments in queue.

Alright, we'll come back to finance on 645.

No file.

No file. Seeing no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, AB 645 will go to suspense. On a personal note, having rode my bicycle 6,000 miles last year, I can tell you that the streets are not always safe. We need to continue to work on that. Alright, moving on to AB 894 Friedman on parking requirements: shared parking. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We will open up the public comment for support of 894. Seeing no rush to the microphone in support.

How about opposition of 894, seeing no one move to the microphone moderator we will go to the phone line on eight nine four I got it right that time. And see if anybody wants...

If you haven't already, press 10 to comment on 894. We'll go first to line 18, go ahead, please.

Good morning, Senator Portantino. Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All supporting the co sponsors on this important parking Bill. Thank you.

Line 32, please go ahead. And line 32, you're open.

This is Nick Ratto from 350 Bay Area action in support of 894.

Thank you. Line 41, please go ahead.

This is...Cardi at NRDC. National Resources Defense Counsel in Support of 894.

Line 144, please go ahead.

Hello. Good morning, chairman and Members of the committee. This is Liv O'Keeffe representing the California Native Plant Society, the sponsor of AB 1573. This Bill will have significant biodiversity and water conservation benefits and is supported by many native plants.

We're on AB 894, and we're only taking me to testimony on the phone line, so if you want to come back when we're on 1573 thank you.

All right.

Line 145. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Michelle McKinley. I'm sorry I couldn't get through on 645, but I'd like to express my support. I'm in Los Angeles.

We got you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 46, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Damian Kevitt, Executive Director of Streets Are for Everyone in strong support of this Bill 894. Thank you.

Line 85, please go ahead. Line 85, go ahead.

All right, keep going.

No response. We have one more. Line 89, please go ahead.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Bakersfield in support.

Mr. Chair, we do have one more came in. Line 89 is back. Please go ahead. Line 89. 89 has is gone again. All right, Mr. Chair, we have no additional comments in.

Queue, so we'll come back to Finance. No file, no file, no questions. Without objection, 894 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1572 Friedman: potable water, nonfunctional turf. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up public comment in this room on 1572. Seeing no one here in support, how about opposition? Seeing no one come to the microphone, Moderator, we'll go to the phone line on support or opposition of 1572.

For support or opposition for AB 1572, please press one, then zero. First, you're going to line number 41. Please go ahead.

Zak Accuardi at NRDC in support of 1572.

Thank you. And we'll have a couple more in just a moment. And again, it'll be one to zero. We'll just have a couple more in just a moment. And we go into line number 96.

Good morning, Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we go into line number 10. One, please go ahead. All right.

This is Jay Jefferson with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. We are proud co sponsors and urge your support on AB 1572.

Thank you. Thank you. And we'll have another in just a moment. Next, we go into line number 146.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yes.

Hi. My name is Jen Nossooff. I'm a Member of Walk SF in San Francisco. I missed the call for support of AB 65, and I am in strong support of that Bill.

Thank you. And next we go on to line 151. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Liv O'Keefe with California Native Plant Society calling in support of AB 1572.

Thank you. We have no more in queue at this time.

All right, finance we'll come to you.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1572. We would note the Department of General Service believes costs to maintain their non functional turf on state owned properties in compliance with the Bill would result in unknown, but potentially tens of millions of dollars in General Fund. We also believe the Bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires local agencies to either find non potable water sources or convert to drought resistant landscaping.

All right, we've heard from Finance. I see no questions or comments from my colleagues. Without objection, 1572 will move to the suspense file. Moving on to AB 1573 Friedman: Water conservation, landscape design. Is a suspense. Candidate. The author's waived presentation. we'll open up public comment with support.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 kids. Strong support.

All right, anyone else in support? How about opposition to 1573?

Sorry, I have a leg injury, so my name is Sharina Latch, I'm with Placer County and CPU Union, and I'm in strong opposition of this Bill. Thank you. I think it costs too much. Thank you very much.

Anyone else opposed? Seeing no one else coming to the microphone, we'll go to the phone line for support or opposition of 1573.

For support or opposition for 1573, please press one, then zero. First we go into line number 41. Please go ahead.

Zak Accuardi. Once more for NRDC in support of 1573.

Thank you. And next, we go into line number 96. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Kim Delfino, representing California Native Plant Society. The Salons serve this Bill Bill and in support, as well as Defenders of Wildlife. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we're going to line number 101, please go ahead. 101, your line is open. You next. We're going to line number 152, please go ahead.

Thank you. 152, your line is open. We have no more in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 1573.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1573. The Department of Water Resource estimates approximately $1.5 one time General Fund and 400 thousand dollars in ongoing costs to update the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and to provide training and education. Finance does believe this cost assessment is likely high. However, we do agree the Bill may drive additional costs.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Without objection, 1573 will go to Suspense. Bradford, do you want pop culture or sports?

Sports.

Sports. Who had the most home runs from 2000 to 2010?

Like one person?

Yeah. Who had the most home runs? A-Rod. Really? You got it. Look at that. Good job. All right, moving on to Mr. Muratsuchi, AB 67: Homeless Courts pilot program and is a Suspense candidate. The good author's waived presentation. We'll open up public hearing in support of AB 67.

Silvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the city of Santa Monica, thank you.

Anyone else in support of 67? Seeing none. How about opposition? AB 67, come on up.

Nicole Young, Placer County. In opposition.

Sharina Latch. Placer County. Opposition. Also in opposition of SCA 2. I was not able to speak on that one, so I'm in strong--CPU Union's in strong opposition of that Bill. Thank you.

All right, any other opposition to AB 67? Come on up.

Hi, Rhonda Murray. Still, I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thanks, Rhonda. Anyone else?

Cindy Decker, Sacramento County. I oppose the Bill.

Okay. Seeing no one else move towards the microphone, we'll go to the phone line for support or opposition of AB 67.

For support or opposition for 67, please press one, then zero. And we're going to line number 20. Please go ahead.

Hi. Abby King with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. And we support this Bill.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All right, we've heard from support and opposition. Let's go to finance on AB 67.

No file.

No file. No questions from my colleagues. Without objection, AB 67 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 323. By Assembly Member Holden: density bonus law purchase of density bonus units by nonprofit housing organizations. It is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room on 323 for support, seeing no support, how about opposition of 323? Seeing no opposition, we'll go to the phone line on 323 for support or opposition.

For AB 323, press one, then zero. First we're going to line number 137. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, Andrew Antwih here today on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in support.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

Finance?

Finance is neutral on AB 323. We estimate the Bill has no state level fiscal impact and it doesn't impose a reimbursable state mandate cost on local agencies. Any and costs incurred by cities and counties can be recovered via developer fees. So we are neutral on the Bill because we believe it helps affordable housing intended for owner occupancy is sold to qualified individuals instead of being offered for rent.

All right. We've heard from finance. Without objection, AB 323 will go to suspense. So in the 2000s, there was a popular medical show that used the word seriously all the time. Does anybody know what popular medical show popularized the word seriously? Who knows? Kobe. No. Grey's Anatomy. There you go. He got it right. All right, moving on to AB 347, ting. Household product safety. Yeah, you got it right. And the crowd went wild. Kobe got it right. Moving on to 347, Ting.

Household product safety, toxic substance testing and enforcement. It is a suspense candidate. The good Assembly Member has waived presentation. We'll open up the public comment. Come on up.

Hi. Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Anyone else in support? Any opposition? Come on up.

Hi. I'm still Andrea, and I don't really have a statement prepared other than you pretend like you care about kids and poisoning kids, except you're shoving pharma poison into them nonstop. So I don't get it. It's sort of a disconnect or like a smoke and mirrors thing, because fiscal you know what? It's expensive to kill children. Have you picked up on that? It's really expensive to kill children.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed to three, four, seven?

Nicole Young in opposition. I believe the fiscal impact on the citizens would be too great. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed to three, four, seven?

Cindy Decker, Sacramento County. I am opposed.

Thank you. Come on up.

I'm Rhonda Murray. I'm opposed to this Bill, and I am from Sacramento County. I don't think I said that earlier.

Thank you, Rhonda.

Thank you.

Can I speak from I can't you're going to make me hobble up there.

Well, you can speak yes, because you're you go ahead.

Sharina Latch Placer County, representing myself right now and in opposition of this Bill because I think it's going to cost too much money.

So Sharina why don't you move behind the microphone so the next time you don't have to get up and they can hear you? Okay. All right, come on up.

Do I have permission to approach?

Yes.

Okay. Hi. I didn't give my if I can speak on behalf of this Bill and why it's important. This Bill saves children. This is about PFAS forever. Chemicals. There are over 14,000 PFAS Forever Chemicals, and this is very important. This will save money and save lives, because what this does is it asks DTSC, Department of Toxic Substance Control.

We're getting into policy. I let you go.

Yeah. Okay. But thank you.

Thank you. I tried it...

Twice? She didn't go up the first time, and she didn't use all of her two minutes. Yeah.

She didn't either, though.

All right, come back up.

I try to be judicious. Come on.

Thank you.

So I'm all for protecting children. I'm not against your Bill... Well, she addressed me.

I'm asking you to stay on the fiscal.

Who would want to poison children? It's expensive. Including shoving injections from liability free medical products into their arms.

This is smoke and mirrors.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, thank you. We'll go to the phone line.

For support or opposition, please press one, then zero. First, we want to line number 156. Please go ahead. One, five, six. Please go ahead. Line number 156. Please go ahead. We'll go to line number 123. Please go ahead.

This is John Bottorff with CleanEarth4Kids.org and strong support.

Thank you. We have no more in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on three, four, seven.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 347. Department of Toxic Substance Control does estimate the cost to be $3.8 million from the Toxic Substance Control account for contracts and 13 positions in 23, 24, and $3.5 million ongoing. We would note this could likely result in an increase to the environmental fee.

All right, we've heard from financing no questions without objection. Three, four, seven, move to suspense. AB 480 Ting surplus land. It's a suspense candidate. The author's wave presentation. We'll open up with public comment and support. Seeing no one in support, how about we go to opposition of 480? Seeing no one come to the microphone, let's go to the phone line. For support or opposition of 480.

For support or opposition of 480, please press one, then zero. First we're going to line number 21.

Nicole Wardelman, on behalf of the city of Ontario, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. And we have another in just a moment. Next, we're going to line number 154. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, Alyssa Silhi calling on behalf of the City of Corona and City of Santa Rosa in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All right. We'll come to Finance on 480.

No file.

No file. Seeing no questions without objection, 480 will move to suspense. AB 505 ting Office of Youth Community Restoration It's a suspense candidate. Authors waive presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room for support for 505. Are you supporting or opposing? Opposing. All right. No one for support. Let's hear from opposition. All right.

Thank you, chair, committee and staff Ryan Moore Muni with the California State Association of Counties, also on behalf of the urban counties of California, Rural County representatives of California, and a growing list of over 20 individual counties that have also weighed in. And so, unfortunately, we are in respectful opposition to AB 505.

While we acknowledge the co sponsors and authors efforts with recent amendments, counties remain deeply concerned as it relates to the overarching governing principle and subsequent fiscal impacts, that responsibility must be accompanied by the local authority to implement. And so, as noted in our opposition letter, one of the primary concerns is around the authority of our elected Boards of Supervisors and their ability to make final decisions around local expenditures for DJJ Realignment.

More specifically, while language tying the release of juvenile justice funding to the acceptance of local committee plans was removed, in our view the approval of the local plans by the state are still a condition of the funding with recent amendments. This not only has a considerable fiscal impact on county budgets if delayed, but also disrupts the DJJ Realignment funding stream established in the 2020 legislation, which is absolutely critical for individualized treatment and programming of the youth and the young adults that are now in county care.

And so, lastly, as noted in analysis, there will be significant but unknown county costs for staffing and resources associated with expanded inspections, site visits, interviews, access to expansive list of county records, but also new processes for the local subcommittees. Thank you for your consideration.

Good morning, Chair and Members Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to AB 505, I'll make a few points not repeating my previous colleague. From a fiscal perspective, there remains significant state mandates and local mandates following the last round of amendments. A particular impact is the new Requirement for the State to Approve The Local plan and The Planning Process in order to receive DJJ Realignment Funding, which May Result In Delays And Disruptions to Stable County Funding and Is critically.

Necessary and important to serving the youth. And really the young adults aged 18 to 25 who are now being served locally and certainly will result in ambiguity in both interpretation and implementation. Delaying and impeding. Stable funding has direct impacts on direct service, delivery from staffing and Clinicians, behavioral health treatment, sex offender treatment and many other vocational and reentry services. Any delay in funding, any impediments to that stability again has direct service implications for these young adults.

This Bill really, from our perspective, sets back the progress of SB 823 in 2020, which was to serve youth closer to home in locally responsive ways and would centralize state processes and decisions over that local planning for these youth and trying to determine how best to serve these youth and their needs. So we strongly urge your no vote to ensure that progress and direct services for these youth and young adults are not impeded by unnecessary and costly new mandates. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we're in the Too space.

Izzy Swindler, a Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange. On behalf of a few different county board of supervisors, I'm in opposition. Butte, Fresno, Kern, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare and Shasta District One supervisor Kevin Crye all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. More opposition.

Yes. Sharina Latch Placer County CPU Union Member and strong opposition of this Bill is going to cost way too much money. Plus, we're a lot of county injuries thank you. Unisync in this and we're against this. Thank you very much.

Next person.

Nicole Young, Placer County opposition.

All right.

Cindy Decker, Sacramento County. Opposition.

Rhonda Murray, Sacramento County. I oppose this Bill. It has to do with 18 to 25 year olds. But we're talking about 17 year olds voting.

We're on the me too.

I know.

All right, anyone else?

You're going to hear me? I just want to say I like trivia questions.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. We'll go to the phone line.

Portal opposition for AB 50 five, please press one, then zero press. We're going to line number 21. Please go ahead.

Nicole Wardelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County in opposition.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 505. No file, no file, no questions. Without objection, 505 will move to suspense. AB 399 Boerner on water ratepayer protections act of 2023 is a suspense candidate. The author's waives presentation. We'll open up public testimony right here in this room for support on 399. seeing none. How about we go to opposition on 399, seeing none, how about we go to the phone line for support or opposition, on 399.

For support or opposition, on 399, please press one then zero. First we're going to line number 29. Please go ahead. Line number 29. Your line is open.

Hello? This is Jordan on behalf of California Youth Connection, sorry for missing the last queue. We are a co sponsor in support of AB 505. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we're going to line number 62. Please go ahead, 62. Your line is open.

That was for the last Bill.

Just tell us your piece.

You really want to know my piece?

Just your position, that's all.

Position is opposed.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. And there is no more in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 399.

Finance is currently neutral on AB 399. We don't anticipate the--we anticipate the bill's expanded voter approval requirement won't impose a state reimbursable mandate on Member agencies that want to separate from the authority because the decision is discretionary. So we are neutral. But we would note a concern that it does alter long standing statutory provisions governing the departure of Member agencies from the authority.

Great. We have no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, 399 will go to suspense. So in March of 1999 Mr Jones--Dr Jones.

March of 1999. What happened to the Dow Jones Industrial Average in March of 1999? Since it's your namesake...Wrong. It surpassed 10,000 for the first time. Went the other way. All right, moving on to 531 Irwin Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act of 2023. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation will open up a public comment in this room on 531, seeing no one, come to the microphone in support, how about opposition of 531, seeing no opposition, how about we go to the phone line for support or opposition of 531.

For support or opposition, for five, 31, please press one, then zero. First, you're going to line number 160. Please go ahead. Next, you're going to line number 154. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield and city of Carlsbad, in support thank you.

Thank you. And in just a moment, we'll have another. Again, for support or opposition, for 531 plus one, then zero. And if you need to remove yourself from queue, it's one, then zero again. Next, we're going to line number 105, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Richardson Davis with the Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, and we are neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All right, we've taken support in opposition of 531. We're coming back to finance.

No file.

No file. No questions from my colleagues. Without objection, five, 31 will move to the suspense file. Moving on. AB six five two. Lee. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. It's a suspense candidate. Mr. Lee has waived presentation. We're going to open up the public comment with support. We have support hi.

Suzanne Hume. Cleaners for kids. Strong support. As well as California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Facts, North County Climate Change Alliance, and many others. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other support, how about opposition of 652? Seeing no opposition moderator let's go to the phone line for 652 support opposition.

For 652, please press one, then zero, and there'll be one in a moment. First, we're going to line number 158. Please go ahead.

This is John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org in strong support.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All right, we'll come back to Finance.

Finance is opposed to AB 652. DPR estimates the Bill results in a million dollar cost in 23-24 and ongoing from the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund to support contracts, travel costs, reimbursements, and three and a half positions. And furthermore, Finance would note that the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund is currently facing a structural imbalance.

All right, we've heard from Finance. I see no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, 652 will move to suspense. AB 1082, Kalra, authority to remove vehicles. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation will open up public comment right here in this room. For support of 1082, seeing no support, how about opposition of 1082? Seeing no opposition, moderator will go to the phone line.

For support or opposition for 1082, please press one then zero. And we have no one in queue.

All Right. We have no one in queue. We'll come back to finance.

Finance is opposed to AB 1082. The DMV would have to undertake programming to modify how and when registration is withheld for parking violations. And we would note that the cost to build this functionality and through the new digital experience platform could be significant given the many different scenarios that could result from reporting the tickets and should be noted that the motor vehicle count is currently in an operating deficit. We would also note that the bill creates an indeterminable but potentially significant street parking revenue loss for local governments.

We've heard from Finance. We see no questions or comments from my colleagues. So without objection, AB 1082 will go to suspense. Mr. Seyarto?

Yes, sir.

Famous rock and roll frontman got married on New Year's Eve, 2000 to a famous actress.

Oh, yeah, Tommy Lee.

No, wasn't Tommy Lee. No.

2000?

2000. New Year's Eve, 2000.

Something's got to be spectacular about this.

Front man of the Black Crows. I'll give you a hint.

You lost me there, I don't.

Rihanna?

There's only a few.

No one knows. How about Chris Robinson? Married Kate Hudson on New Year's Eve. Absolutely. Did you get that? You got that. Are they still married? I don't know. All Right. Moving on to our last Bill. 1713. Gipson local agency. Federal Funds to Suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public comment right here in this room to see if anybody wants to share their views in favor of 1713. We see. No one coming up in favor. How about opposition on 1713? Seeing no opposition on 1713. How about we go to the phone line?

Support or opposition. For 1713 press one, then zero. First we're going to line number 62. Please. Go ahead.

Alyssa Maganya from Shasta County. I just want to let you know, Chair, that we can hear you whispering.

Okay.

But I'm in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

All Right. We've taken support in opposition. We'll go to finance.

No File.

No File. We'll go to my colleagues. Seeing no questions or comments. Without objection, 1713 will go to suspense. That is our last Bill on the day. If you want to add your comments, you can still call in or excuse me, still write into the committee. Go through our online portal. Thank you to the staff. We got through. What? 600? How many bills?

More than that. I don't even honestly, a lot. Today was 27.

Today was 27. Tune in Friday. Right. 487 Upright. 487 bills on our docket for Friday immediately after session. Tune in to see what happens. Thank you, Staff. Both Dr. Jones, my vice chair. Thank you to your team as well. We got through through hundreds. I agree. We got through hundreds of hundreds of bills. We'll be back on Friday after session to go through the suspense file. Thank you. Finance for being here. I know, but yeah. No, we'll be here Friday. Thank you, everybody. This meeting is adjourned.