Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

Senator Portantino here, Jones here, Ashby, Bradford here, Seyarto here, Wahab here, Wiener here.

So we have a quorum. Obviously, we are live streaming, so if you want to participate at home, the number is 877-226-8163. 877-226-8163. The access code is 7368. Excuse me. 736-2836. The access code is 736-2836. We're holding the Committee hearing in 112. We've established a quorum. We want to hear from you. I am going to limit public testimony on each measure to 15 minutes aside. So I'm making that and primary witnesses to two minutes per each primary witness.

You can only be a primary witness if you're in person, so the phone callers cannot be primary witnesses, but each one will have two minutes. We have seven bills on the agenda. We've established our quorum. I also want to remind our witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal impacts of a Bill. This is a fiscal Committee, so don't feel like you have to relitigate the policy. And we've talked about the limits on testimony. With that, we are going to go to the speaker is here.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you could come up and present your Bill, which is AB 876, on the Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project, and it's an urgency item.

Am I to be here or up here?

You can come here. We want you close and intimate. This is good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators appreciate all of the time. I want to thank the staff for the time that they put into this Bill, and I'll certainly be as brief as I possibly can, but this Bill here, AB 876, is urgency legislation. It's a very important Bill to the region I represent, as it intends to speed up a critical $400,000,000 flood risk management project. It's a project that will provide 100 year flood protection to our region.

This project is located in the Pajaro Valley, which is nestled between the counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz. And specifically, this Bill, as was detailed in the analysis, seeks to grant the Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project exemptions from needing to secure lake and stream bed alteration agreements with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as exemptions from certain water quality permitting requirements.

It also seeks to grant this project an expedited CEQA process, which is loosely based on a precedent regarding dam removal along the Klamath River. In both cases, recognition of the environmental benefits of this project, they justified a less extensive environmental review so that work could begin sooner and faster. It should be noted that this project will only receive these exemptions if it meets the highest environmental standards. We have incorporated extensive feedback from the environmental community and from the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

And so, in fact, this project is expected to result in significant environmental benefits. Certainly why this project is so important, why it's so critical, is that these communities in the Pajaro Valley, the town of Pajaro, the City of Watsonville, are some of the most disadvantaged some communities in our state, and receive some of the lowest levels of flood protection in our state.

The result, as we all know, is that several major floods have devastated these communities over the years, including this past spring when hundreds of homes and businesses were destroyed. Recovery is still ongoing. Hundreds of local farm workers have been left unemployed as a result of the destruction of agricultural fields in the surrounding areas. Senator Laird has already passed legislation that governs the state's share of project costs. But now we need to speed up the timeline for this project to ensure that we begin the construction.

With me. Here to testify is Jackson Gualco on behalf of the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chair and Members Jack Walco with the Gualco Group on behalf of the Pajaro River Flood Management Agency. The speaker has clearly laid out the Bill. The one thing I'd like to add is this area has five to seven years level of flood protection. It's some of the worst in the state, and the communities where devastated need a quick response. So it's in that spirit that we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Any other primary witnesses?

No.

Any other witnesses in support? Please come on up to the microphone. Support, come on up. We've taken our primary witnesses, so it's me too time.

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

Thank you. All right. No other support? We'll go to opposition. Are there any primary opposition? Seeing none. Is there anyone else in this room opposed? Seeing no opposition, we'll go to the phone line. Moderator, please open the phone line for support or opposition.

Thank you. For in support or opposition, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line nine. Your line is open. Line nine, your line is open. We will move on to line 14.

Good evening. This is Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association and we are in support thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

We have no further support or opposition in queue. Mr. Speaker colleagues, I move the Bill. We have a motion on the Bill. It is a do pass recommendation. Before I ask you to do your speaker. You know, we do have a tradition of doing trivia questions in the Appropriations Committee, but I'm going to be nice. Since you are the speaker, would you like pop culture or pop culture? Pop culture. Okay. Which pop star was Judge Judy's neighbor?

I will defer to the Advocate.

All right. There you go. I will help out the speaker. It was Justin Bieber. It was Judge Judy's neighbor. All right, Mr. Speaker, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for rolling with the trivia questions. And with that, we will take the vote.

AB 876. The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. Senator Portantino aye, Jones aye, Ashby aye, Bradford aye, Seyarto aye, Wahab aye, Wiener aye. Seven-zero.

7-0. That Bill is out. Thank you. And Ms. Ashby, since he did not choose Sacramento, okay, so the Wells Fargo Center is the tallest building in Sacramento at 430ft. What is the second tallest building in Sacramento?

I think the US. Bank building.

The US bank tower. Ashby got it. Right. All right, moving on. We have Mr. Ramos here to come up and tell us about his Bill.

Chairman, point of order.

Yes.

I think the joint rules say that during the last two weeks of session, trivia is not permitted.

As the chair of this Committee, I'm going to overrule you, Mr. Weiner, because we cannot disappoint the audience. All right, Mr. Ramos, come on up and tell us about AB 389, which is on Native American reparations. California Native American Grave Protection and Reparations Act of 2001.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators. Today I'm presenting AB 389, a Bill that would hold the California State Universities accountable in returning the remains of Native American ancestors held in those institutions following an audit that was requested in 2022. We discovered through the audit, independent audit, that the Cal State University compliance was out of compliance with over 700,000 Native American remains, with little less than 6% of those remains repatriated since 1995. The audit continued to make recommendations of holding Cal State Universities accountable.

AB 389 takes the Auditor's top recommendations, which considers that the Cal State University has a lot more to do. This Bill is moving forward with your help. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have primary witnesses? No. All right. We'll go to others in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Jerome Encinas here today, on behalf of the United Auburn Indian Community, we are removing our opposition and supporting the Bill with the amendments that Mr. Ramos has taken in the Senate Education Committee. That fixed a lot of the glaring errors that were in the Bill. Thank you.

Others wishing to testify in support.

Good evening, chair and Members. Naomi Padrone, on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians. Thanks to the amendments taken in the Senate Education Committee yesterday, Pachanga has removed their opposition and is now in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. There. Any opposition? Seeing no opposition, we'll go to the phone line moderator for support or opposition.

Thank you. For support or opposition. You may press one, then zero.

Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

We have no one in queue. Are there any comments from my colleagues?

I move the Bill.

Okay. And Finance does not have a file on this. No file on this. We have a motion. Mr. Ramos, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you for standing with California's first people. I ask for your aye vote.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

Senator Portantino aye, Jones aye, Ashby aye, Bradford aye, Seyarto aye, Wahab aye, Wiener aye. 7-0.

That Bill is out. 7-0. Mr. Wiener, which Oscar winner was on the Mickey Mouse club? Since you were a troublemaker, I had to give you a good question. An Oscar winner got to start on the Mickey Mouse club.

There were so many actors on the Mickey Mouse Club.

Oscar winner, though. No? You know, Ryan Gosling. There you go. There you go. Good job. All right. We will move on to Mr. Holden. Mr. Ramos, your Bill is out, seven to zero. Mr. Holden. Come on up. Mr. Holden, feel free to bring trivia to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Please tell us about AB 1228 fast food restaurant industry, fast food council, health, safety, and employment, and minimum wage.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present AB 1228, an amended Bill that creates a path forward to resolve employer community concerns around the content of AB 257 from 2022, while preserving fast food workers hard fought efforts to secure a seat at the table and means to raise standards.

The joint liability provisions of AB 1228 will be replaced with an updated version of AB 257's Fast Food Council that will go into effect, providing the referendum is withdrawn by the January 1, 2024. The amendments to AB 1228 raise the statewide minimum wage fast food workers to $20 an hour in April of next year 2024. Thereafter, the council may establish minimum wages for fast food restaurant employees that take effect on an annual basis beginning on January 1, 2025.

The hourly minimum wage established by the council may increase on an annual basis by no more than 3.5%. The council may elect to set minimum wage standards that vary by region. AB 1228, as amended, affirms that the purpose of the fast food Council is to develop minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including, as appropriate standards on wages and working conditions.

The Bill ensures that there is equal representation on the council between the fast food restaurant industry and the franchisee or restaurant owners, as well as fast food employees and employee advocates. Finally, AB 1228 indicates that the council does not have the authority to create or amend, which is the same as AB 257. And the council can't set regulations creating new paid time off benefits, such as paid sick leave or paid vacation. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

We have your primary witness.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Randy Pollock. On behalf of the International Franchise Association and National Restaurant Association here in support of the amended version of AB 1228. I want to thank the governor's office and the governor's staff for spending the last couple of months of bringing the parties together to try to negotiate this agreement. We believe that this is a fair agreement for workers, and also, it is very important that it preserves a franchise model here in California.

So we look forward to working with the Committee and the Governor as we move this Bill forward, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Thank you, Kimberly Rosenberger with Service Employees International Union. I just want to echo the comments about the collaborative effort. It was a herculean thing to get here today. And we are very appreciative of both the Legislature and the franchisors and employers and workers. This Bill has addressed a number of issues and ultimately is providing a council that has fair representation in a level playing field. Ultimately, we think that this just shows that when workers fight, everyone wins. And for those reasons, we urge your support.

Wonderful. Other witnesses in support? Seeing no one else come to the microphone. How about opposition? Seeing no one come to the microphone. Moderator let's go to the phone line. For support or opposition to AB 1228.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one, then zero. Mr. Chair. We have no one queuing up.

We have no one queuing up. Are there any comments from my colleagues? We have a motion by Assembly Senator Wahab. Let's call the roll. Did you want to close? I'm sorry.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And we have no file. No file. Thank you. Mr. Holden. Let's call the roll.

AB 1228. The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Senator Portantino aye, Jones no, Ashby aye, Bradford aye, Seyarto no, Wahab aye, Wiener aye. Five to two.

Congratulations. Well done, everybody, for making it all work. All right. We have Mr. McCarty here. As Mr. McCarty comes up, Mr. Seyarto, I know you're hip. So who did Taylor Swift diss in bad blood? Not that hip. Who knows? Yell it out. Katy Perry. There you go. The audience helped you out. All right, Mr. McCarty, tell us about your Bill. AB 1291 on the University of California. Associate degree for transfer pilot program. Got his swellers. Look at that. What does it say? Bad Blood. Bad Blood.

So you knew the answer to the. Question I wanted to give them. All right?

Yeah. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair and your staff for working with us. We have before us a really big deal for higher education access in California. This is the largest expansion of automatic transfer opportunities for UC transfer from our community colleges. A lot of work with the Senate and Assembly leadership, along with the governor's office and the UC. This started as part of a budget proposal. It was punted to the Legislature for us to hammer out an agreement. UC was opposed up until two weeks ago.

So we're pleased to announce they have removed their opposition. This isn't the perfect ADT process like we have with the CSU, but it gives us an opportunity to start. So this will start with UCLA and therefore expand to five campuses by 28, 29. You have to have sometimes a PhD to understand how to transfer from a community college to a UC, where only about two and a half percent of students successfully transfer from a community college to UC within two years. This breaks us wide open.

It's a game changer for higher education access through the community colleges. Again, thank you for working with us, Mr. Chair, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we've got any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator let's open the phone line for support or opposition.

Thank you. For in support or opposition, you may press one, then zero. And we have no one in queue at this time.

No opposition, no support, nobody on the phone line. Anybody want to talk about this? We have a motion. Would you like to close, Mr. McCarty arty?

Thank you very much I ask for your aye vote.

And we have no file. And before we go, since we have two Sacramento folks here, which famous swimmer swam for the Arden Hill Swim Club and won seven gold medals?

Mark Spitz.

Mark Spitz. There you go. Good job. Let's take the role.

Did you know that?

The motion is due pass to the Senate Floor. Senator Portantino aye. Jones aye. Ashby aye. Bradford aye. Seyarto aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye.

Wiener aye, 7-0.

That Bill is out seven to zero. We will go on to Assembly Member Garcia. Come on up on cue. Perfect. Come talk about your energy Bill, which is an urgency matter. AB 1373.

Okay. Proud to present AB 1373 comprehensive measure that at the core, enables the Department of Water Resources to procure specific energy resources that aren't being purchased by our state's utilities. The analysis does a good job in outlining what we can and cannot do with this particular authority. So I'll just cut to the chase and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I heard a motion.

No, not yet.

All right. Do you have any witnesses in support? There is motion. Come on, line up. Let's go. If you're a primary witness, come take the seat. Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman. Members John White with the Clean Power campaign. This is a very important measure that will help stabilize our electric grid, help maintain reliability and help us develop the most valuable and important new resources such as offshore wind, geothermal and storage. We think it's a good Bill. There's been a lot of discussions and negotiations. We think it's a fair and balanced approach and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. Seeing a whole bunch of folks line up. Is this support? Go ahead. It's me too time.

Hi, I'm Nancy Kirschner Rodriguez with the Business Network for Offshore Wind. We have close to 600 Member supply chain companies from shipbuilding and mooring line manufacturers, cabling and environmental consultants, skilled trades, ports and engineering firms. In support of AB 1373.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members, Karen Lange, on behalf of the Humboldt County and San Luis Obispo County Boards of Supervisors in support. Seeking also amendments to make sure that local governments can recover their costs associated with the transmission that will come onshore. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair Members Brian White on behalf of Offshore Wind California, an association of technology companies and offshore wind developers. We're in strong support of the Bill. We appreciate Assembly Member Garcia and the Administration and your Committee staff for all your hard work. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members, Tatum Ackler with Samson Advisors, on behalf of Vineyard Offshore, one of the leaseholders off the Humboldt Coast, in strong support.

Good evening. Mckinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of Ocean Winds. We have the Golden State Wind Project off the coast of Central California and we are in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Senators Rosanna Caravacho Elliott, here on behalf of Equinor Wind, which is also a leaseholder on the central coast. Thank you very much. In support.

Mr. Chair Members, Victoria Rome with NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Mike Monaghan, State Building and Construction Trades Council in support.

Jordan Curley on behalf of American Clean Power California, in support.

Good afternoon. Don Wilcox with California Conference of Carpenters in strong support.

Wilcox, before you go. All right, it's a good one. So, Mr. Wilcox, which chef commonly uses the word bam? Emerald? There you go. See, I gave you a softball.

Good evening, Chair and Members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Caitlin Roedner Sutter on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, in support.

Meegan Murray here on behalf of RWE, one of the leaseholders in Humboldt in strong support. Thank you.

Good evening. Erin Grizard with Invenergy. We're one of the central coast leaseholders of the Evenkill Wind project. In strong support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. Strong support.

Chair Members, Marvin Pineda. On behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, I want to thank Senator Bradford and Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia for all their work in this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Community Choice Association and Clean Power SF, both of whom are neutral on the Bill, but very appreciative of the author, the Administration and leadership for the good piece of legislation they've negotiated. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Catherine Brandenburg on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power, we're also neutral. Thank you.

All right. Is there any opposition? Looks like we have one. Come on up.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Izzy Swindler on behalf of Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition, opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition come forward, moderators, or anyone on the phone line supporting or opposing AB 1373.

To express support or opposition. You may press one, then zero again. That is 1 and 0 for support or opposition. And we have no one in queue at this time, Mr. Chair.

We have no one in queue.

Move the Bill.

We have a motion. And we do have a file.

Michelle Peralt, Department of Finance. We are neutral on the Bill. CPUC, CEC, Department of Water Resources and the California Workforce Development Board all estimate minor and absorbable costs to implement the requirements of the Bill. Finance is neutral, as we believe this aims to advance the state's greenhouse gas reduction and energy reliability goals. And it is consistent with the administration's proposal included in the 23-24 Budget Act.

Would you like to close?

Thank you for your attention on the matter and respectfully ask for your support.

All right, we have a motion to pass it to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

AB 1373. The motion is due pass to the Senate Floor. Senator Portantino aye, Jones no, Ashby aye, Bradford aye, Seyarto no, Wahab aye, Wiener aye.

That Bill is out. Five to two. We need Assemblymember Aguiar Curry or Assembly Member Ward. They are going to take time, too. Yeah, please call them, Sergeants, while we're waiting for them. Mr. Weiner, you're always good on music.

No, I'm not.

Which alternative metal band was formed in Sacramento in 1988? Say that again. Did we do that one? Sorry, I missed the question. With White Pony and Gore. Were their albums. The Deaf Tones. Did I do that one already? The Deaf Tones.

No, I don't think so.

Yeah, we did cake. We need Aguiar Curry or Ward. Okay. Whoever shows up first. All right, who wants a Marvel question? You want that? So, there are three Marvel actors with the same first name. Tell us. Chris. Chris. You can tell us. We have Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans and Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt the least important. My goodness. He was dissed...

ACA 13 on voting thresholds.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you for your patience as we were wrapping up some floor business. Here to present ACA 13 to the Appropriations Committee. Would you like the short version?

Yes.

The fiscal impacts are really related to the... just general requirements for the secretary of state to be able to place a measure on the ballot and so associated impacts with the attorney general and other agencies that would be involved in this action. I'd like to be able to present my witnesses in support of the bill and would respectfully request your vote.

All right. Good evening, chair and members. Ben Triffo with League of California Cities. I'd like to start by emphasizing that our organization, along with our local government partners, proudly support ACA 13. There's been a lot of misinformation that ACA 13 selectively protects certain local governments over others. ACA 13 equally applies to all local governments, including special districts, counties, general law cities and charter cities. We stand together behind ACA 13. Now, as I mentioned, ACA 13 is about fairness and empowering voters. Under current law, a simple majority of voters may vote to require supermajority voter approval of future measures without the corresponding level of support. ACA 13 is a constitutional amendment that would require future ballot measures that increase voter approval requirements to also pass by that same threshold. ACA 13 is fair. It would also preserve the right of local governments to place advisory questions on the ballot, asking voters their opinions on issues. ACA 13 supports good government. ACA 13 protects local communities by ensuring that a simple majority of statewide voters cannot restrict the will of a supermajority of voters in a local Committee. ACA 13 protects the democratic process. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members. Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association supporting ACA 13, which enshrines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. ACA 13 protects school funding and local control. In addition to state general fund allocated to schools, local governments have the ability to address their needs by using ballot measures to ask voters to approve additional funding for schools. This is funding for classrooms and libraries to support students and teachers, and for arts and music education. Voters approve billions of dollars for education funding through local measures every election cycle. It's integral to ensure that local government and voters retain the ability to recognize what their communities need most and can act on it. At the turn of the last decade, California was ranked in the middle 30s in the nation's and per people's funding. Thanks to a focus on increased funding through local measures as well as Prop 30 and Prop 55, California is now 19th. But that is nowhere near where we should be with the fifth-largest economy in the world. Ensuring the passage of ACA 13 is incredibly important to protect students and teachers, and for those reasons, CTA urges your aye vote on this priority bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there others in support? Come on up. Me too time.

Chairman and senators, Terry Brennand on behalf of SEIU California, representing over 700,000 tax-paying workers in California who believe fair is fair, we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Good evening, chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AskMe California, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and senators. Matt Cremins, here, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support. Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the cities of Belmont, Rancho Cucumunga, Santa Rosa and Mountain View. Thank you.

Karen Lange, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in support.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Mayor London Breed of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Silvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, in support. And also on behalf of the California Faculty Association, also in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott. On behalf of the City of Alameda, in support. Thank you.

Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of Otay Water District in support.

Good evening. Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District in the Sea of Sacramento, in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties, in strong support.

Mr. Chair, members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Chairman and members, Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT. In support.

All right, we'll go to opposition of ACA 13. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors here in opposition to ACA 13. ACA 13 would require that any citizen-led initiative to amend the state constitution, which attempts to increase the percentage of votes needed to pass a local or state ballot measure, must itself pass by the same percentage. The consequences of such a proposal would have disastrous effects by eroding the current voter-enacted citizen-led initiatives that are enshrined within the state's constitution. So, for example, an initiative to remove the tax protections of Prop 13 would only need a majority vote to do so. But an initiative to protect or strengthen the property tax protections of Prop 13 by enacting a two-thirds vote for special taxes affecting property would require a two-thirds vote of the people. In short, removing protections against taxation is easy, but putting them back becomes very hard. This increases the odds of groups trying to strip away Prop 13 tax requirements, which will only make housing even less affordable as citizens will be burdened by higher taxes. ACA 13 has far-reaching impacts that would allow for more taxes to be imposed not only to homeowners, but also to our small business owners who are the bedrock of our communities. Bottom line, ACA 13 will lead to incentives to reduce the vote threshold for special taxes put on the ballot by a governmental body, thereby making an initiative to protect or strengthen the property tax protections of Prop 13 more challenging to restore if they were to be reduced. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Mr. Chair and senators, thank you for having me here tonight. I feel bad because we're the first significant opposition of the evening, and this has been such a great hearing. I hope we could be the first opposition to get some trivia questions and nail them. But good evening.

On that note, which Real Housewives, two of them starred in Broadway in "Chicago?" Erica Jane, that's one, and Lisa Rinna.

Well, thank you very much.

I will restart the clock on you.

Thank you very much for that. Good evening. My name is Matthew Hargrove. I'm the president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association. And we're here in strong opposition to ACA 13. We represent many different associations that are all throughout California, including the Building Owners and Managers Association of California. There's eight chapters throughout the state. NAOP, California, there's six chapters throughout the state ICSC and Irum. Basically, it's commercial real estate. ACA 13 is not just a direct threat to Prop 13, but it's a direct threat to the state's general fund as well. And I really want to focus my comments tonight on how it will impact the state's general fund, as the opposition coalition brought up in Policy Committee yesterday and was affirmed by alleged council opinion. Well, not, I'm sorry, alleged council note today, I hope you have seen that, ACA 13 only governs charter cities and does not affect general law cities, special districts, counties or school districts. If ACA 13 is passed by voters, 98% of local governments will still be subject to higher vote thresholds with a simple majority vote of the electorate. ACA 13 will create a two-tiered system of winners and losers. The League of Cities, a chief proponent of ACA 13, has publicly stated the measure is designed to make it easier to raise revenue. And I get that. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a parent. I do want to see all the nice things that was mentioned earlier, but also that needs to be within reason. But it only makes it easier to raise revenue for the League's wealthiest and largest cities, creating a potentially significant disparity in funding between charter cities and general law cities. Here in this area, the example will be Sacramento as a charter lost city, will be covered by this, but West Sacramento, which I know you have lots of friends over there, will not be covered by this. And that's a big deal for us, especially for somebody like me, who's very active over there. In such funding inequities, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the state general fund is responsible for equalizing the funding. ACA 13 and the lawsuits that arise from the flaws of this constitutional amendment will jeopardize the future stability of the general fund, which would be at risk of having to pay untold amounts of money to equalize the funding revenue disparities between ACA 13's winners and losers. California already has one of the most volatile boom and bus budgets in the country. ACA 13 will exacerbate that problem to an unknown degree. And let's not forget that ACA 13 is a constitutional amendment. Once passed, it's not easy to change. Thank you for your time this evening.

All right, any other opposition to ACA 13? Line up. It's me too time.

Mr. Chair. Chris McCauly on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in opposition.

Natalie Boust on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

All right, seeing no one else in the room at the microphone. Moderator, please queue up anybody who wants to speak in support or opposition to ACA 13.

Thank you, for your support or opposition. You may press one, then zero. We will go to line eight. Your line is open.

Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support.

Thank you. Line 12.

Good evening, chair and members. Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the cities of Buena Park, Compton, Half Moon Bay, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Oakland, Oceanside, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, San Leandro, San Pablo, Santa Barbara, Walnut Creek, Lafayette and the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, line 13.

Good evening.... with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you, line 17.

Good evening. Jamie Minor on behalf of the Eastern Municipal Water District, in support. Thanks.

Thank you, line 18.

Good evening, chair and members. Erik Turner, on behalf of the town of Apple Valley, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, line 20.

Good evening. Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, line 21.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Moira Topp on behalf of the City of San Diego, in support.

Thank you, line 10.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here tonight in opposition.

Thank you, line 19.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

All right, we've taken support and opposition. Any comments from my colleagues? We have a motion, we have a comment.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward, for working on this, trying to make us understand it. But I have some issues with this, the process and also the bill itself, because I see it as taking another bite out of some protections that were built in a long time ago. And the protections were taken by citizens because they want to send the message that increasing taxes should be very, very difficult. And because when it wasn't, people were being priced right out of their homes. That was in the 1970s. I remember the beginnings of Prop 13. I even sat there in the Howard Jarvis meetings when Howard Jarvis was trying to get support for Prop 13. That part is concerning to me that we're trying to take a bite out of that. And if raising taxes is made really easy, and I can understand why all the public agencies want this, because it means more revenues. But if raising revenues is made really easy, then what happens is being fiscally responsible and using some fiscal restraint in spending our taxpayer dollars becomes less of a priority. And then you have the runaway train. This Legislature is spending more and more money and making everything more and more expensive. And then we want to turn to taxes and take more money out of people to pay for it all. What we should be doing is using the taxes that they pay us to get the priorities done and let people live their lives. The third part of this that concerns me a lot is whenever we change the structure and it goes to the ballot, we have a ballot and title and summary process that frankly is very skewed. It's very partisan. And until we address that and there have been bills there was a Bill this year, of course, that never got heard to address this and have a nonpartisan body do our title and summary for the ballot so that people aren't confused into thinking that what they're voting on is different than what they are voting on. And until those things are addressed, I am not comfortable in changing any part of Prop 13. I really do think we have a lot of money that we raise through taxes. And we need to be better about how we go about using that, not just make it easier to raise them again, because as soon as we raise them, everybody's coming to the table for their slice of the pie, and we will gain nothing in terms of infrastructure, housing, and all those other things that we really, really need. So those are my concerns with this Bill. I'll be voting no. My comments are carry over to the next one we're going to hear, so you're not going to hear me twice. But I do appreciate your efforts and thank you for being patient with us today while we talk about this.

Thank you, Senator. If I may, Mr. Chair?

Go ahead.

I think responding to some of those very valid concerns, and I hear you strongly on those maybe working backwards. Of course, this measure has nothing to do to be able to change the mechanism by which we do our ballot and title summaries and the analysis that goes into that. I might have a conversation with you where I find good faith with the attorney general is charged with being able to provide that function and that service right now. But if future measures come up that are looking to change that another way, look forward to having that conversation. That potential debate with you, I suppose that would apply to every ACA and SCA that's put forward as well. And so that's kind of an equal issue there. With regard to taxes and Proposition 13, thanks to work with senate colleagues as well, it was explicitly amended in here, even though it's implicit because nothing is retroactive. When we pass something going forward, if it's approved by the voters, everything is in effect going forward. But we made that abundantly clear through senate amendments here that nothing is retroactive or changes anything with Proposition One that's in effect, nothing in this text raises any taxes. This addresses a question where we have now seen a successive effort to try to change ballot threshold measures to something greater than a majority. And it begs the first question, is that fair? Should you lock in a supermajority vote with less than a supermajority level of support? And so whether or not something is so significant that you need to change, whether it often replies to revenue questions. But of course, in the State of Ohio over the summer, it was attempted to apply to reproductive rights questions, and we've heard chatter in our communities this could affect affordable housing projects in a city or whatever people that wanted to use the citizens initiative process wanted to try to test. When you're raising something to a significant level, it makes it that much harder than for any future questions to be able to meet because you're basically taking away the rights, the will of the majority. And that's why we have titled this the Protect and Retain Majority Vote Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ward? I just want to ask some clarifying questions because there seemed to be some disagreement in some of the opening testimony in support of the bill. The opening witness mentioned that the bill applies even across the board. But my understanding is that the bill only applies to charter cities, which would leave out 361 other cities, 58 counties, school districts, special districts from the provisions of the ACA 13. And your opening witness specifically mentioned special districts. So can you speak to that disparity and maybe clear that up for us, please?

Thank you. Anyone? Yes, Mr. Jones?

Thank you, senator. I find that an interesting and new assertion that I find is completely false. I think you all know well, we're all pretty astute at how our governmental documents work, that the Constitution is the superior governing document in the state and our nation. But for here that relegates, then all the decisions that are decided through a court or decided whether something is passed by the secretary of state. So, of course it applies to both general and charter law cities, general law and charter cities alike. And that's why you heard a lot of testimony from representatives of individual cities both here and over the phone lines who are general law cities that are still in very strong support.

Okay, so it's your assertion that it applies equally to charter schools and general law schools.

Yeah, indiscriminately.

Cities. I mean, cities.

Indiscriminately.

Okay, thank you. I'll also be voting no. Thank you.

All right, and just again, walk us through the amendments that were taken in the Elections Committee, germane to Prop 13.

That's right. So there is explicit language there that is aware as, that says everything with Proposition One that's in effect is still in effect. Nothing is going to change anything retroactively. We don't do that through constitutional amendments, which are prospective in their effect. And the second one, again, for abundance of clarification is in the measure itself, which says this only applies to measures going forward after January 1, 2024.

Thank you.

First of all, I don't know, has the bill been moved? I'm happy to move it. I moved the bill. I want to thank you for bringing this forward. There has been a very troubling move in this country to move away from actual democracy, and we see it in many, many respects. But one way is this continual push to have supermajorities for the people of California to take action. And just to be clear, I agree the people passed a number of ballot measures. We're simply proposing to send this to the voters to ask the people if they want to do this. Really, there is a concerted effort to destroy government in California, to make it impossible for government to fulfill fundamental responsibilities around infrastructure basic public services, fire, police, having functioning transportation systems, having water systems that don't poison people, having sewer systems that actually work. These are basic government responsibilities. And there is a push to make it impossible for government to do that. And we see efforts even to make it impossible for the legislature to really function. And we have in California, been gradually moving away from those anti-democratic impulses. We no longer require a two-thirds vote to pass a budget in the legislature. We saw a move around school bonds. And I think if someone is proposing to something highly anti-democratic, for example, to say it's not good enough for 63% of voters to support something that's not good enough, the 37% trumped the 63%. That is intensely anti-democratic. And if you're proposing that, I think it's completely fair to say that you should have to achieve the threshold that you are trying to impose on the state of California and our cities and so on and so forth. So this is a very reasonable measure, and I'm happy to move it.

All right, any other comments? Would you like to close?

Thank you, everybody, for this discussion. Again, it's very simple on its face. It really just asks the voters, right? Not for us to decide, but for them to decide a very fundamental question. And that is, what does it take to actually pass a measure? And that if a measure is proposing to raise a vote threshold, should the same proportion of voters be in agreement? With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

All right, we have a motion to move to the floor. Call the roll.

ACA 13. The motion is to be adopted and referred to the senate floor. Senator Portantino. Aye. Portantino aye. Jones. No. Jones no. Ashby. Aye. Ashby aye. Bradford. Bradford aye. Seyarto. No. Seyarto no. Wahab. Wahab aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener aye. Five to two.

That bill is out, five to two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have our final bill, ACA 1, Aguiar-Curry on local government financing, affordable housing, and public infrastructure. Please tell us about ACA 1.

Once upon a time. Good evening, Mr. Chair and senators. I rise to present ACA 1, which will give local governments a more realistic financing option to invest in their communities and fund an increase in housing, and to address the numerous local public infrastructure challenges that cities, counties, and special districts are facing each day. ACA 1 is equipped with historic and unprecedented accountability and transparency measures, one of which requires that locals' annual performance and financial audits be reviewed by the Bureau of State Audits.

This fiscal oversight was added to address opponents' concerns about assuring local taxpayers' money is spent appropriately and on the specific expenditure plan required as part of ACA 1 initiatives. They may disagree on the overall initiative, but they cannot argue that ACA 1 would not be the most accountable fiscal tool available to local governments who choose to seek the approval of their voters for local investments in their community's economy. With me to testify and support today is Doug Subers, the Director of Governmental Affairs from the California Professional Firefighters, and Abram Diaz, Policy Director for Nonprofit Housing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. My name is Doug Subers, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support of ACA 1. At the outset, I would like to thank the author for her leadership and ongoing commitment to this important issue. In California, the odds are pretty good that residents live in a danger zone. Whether it's an earthquake, a fire, a flood, or a wildfire. The way we answer the call in California is through our world-class mutual aid system.

This system depends on having a robust and effective local fire, EMS, and disaster response system throughout the state. But our local fire departments continue to struggle with tight budgets and dangerous threat levels. In many jurisdictions, local voters have made their priorities known by stepping up to support measures that secure local public safety funding. Yet we have examples of many measures that have failed to achieve the two-thirds vote threshold.

For example, in 2020, a special tax to support disaster and fire services in Sonoma County failed with 64.8% of the vote. A parcel tax to fund fire and EMS services in the Higgins Fire District in Nevada County received 58.3% of the vote and failed. The failure of this measure ultimately resulted in the district laying off six full-time positions, keeping only two of three fire stations open at a time, and as a result, response times doubled.

We think it is appropriate to ask the voters to consider whether the two-thirds or 55% threshold proposed in ACA 1 is appropriate, and ACA 1 does not raise or approve a single tax. Ultimately, we believe that the benefits of putting this proposal before the voters outweigh the costs of adding another measure to the election, as discussed in the committee analysis, and for those reasons would request your aye vote. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you Chair and committee members. My name is Abram Diaz, and I serve as the Policy Director for the Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California. We are proud to support ACA 1 and are particularly enthusiastic to champion the cause and need for affordable housing bonds. The tools created by this measure are paired with historic accountability requirements to ensure transparency and accountability for every dollar spent.

This is one of the most important measures to address housing and homelessness in front of the Legislature this year. And our Coalition of Affordable Housing and Homelessness organizations urge your support for ACA 1 and happy to answer any questions on the measure as well.

All right. Others in support? It's time for me too.

Mr. Chairmember, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer Lange, on behalf of Caltrain, SamTrans of San Mateo County Transit District, the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, Monterey Salinas Transit, and the Solano County Transportation Authority, all in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters. Strong support of this very important bill.

Donnie. Donnie. Which rapper is Martha Stewart's best friend?

Snoop, Snoop, Snoop.

All right. See, I gave you an easy one. All right, come on up. Keep going.

Mr. Chairman, members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation division, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Keep coming.

Mr. Chairman and members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in strong support. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support. Thank you.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, in support.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wild Cat Consulting, representing the California Community Land Trust Network and their 3500 residents. In strong support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members, Connie Delgado on behalf of the District Hospital Leadership Forum in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members, Greg Hayes with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California and the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Good evening, Chair and members. David Azavito with AARP California, in support.

Ben Triffo with the League of California Cities, in strong support.

Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, representing our more than 220 member organizations in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties in strong support.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Redwood City, and Santa Rosa, and also on behalf of the Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Thank you.

Izzy Swiller, on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Karen Lang, on behalf of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, on behalf of the City of Alameda, also in support.

Mr. Chair and members, Julie Snyder, on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. In strong support. Thank you.

Silvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the cities of West Hollywood and Santa Monica. In support. Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of Silicon Valley Action Fund and all home in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Armenta, with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler, with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and senators. Terry Brennand, on behalf of SEIU California. And before you ask me any trivia questions, Senator Wiener has offered to answer on my behalf.

Good afternoon. Me again. Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners. Thank you.

All right, we'll go to opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition? So you guys give up your chairs for the opposition. Come on up. Go ahead.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors with an opposed unless amended position. CAR is requesting an amendment that limits the acquisition or lease of one to four single-family home parcels. The amendment will preserve homes for first-time homebuyers and limits instances where ACA1 funding is competing with homebuyers for the same parcels. We look forward with working with the author and the co-sponsors to address our concerns. Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Legislative Director, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. ACA1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13. It amends Article XIII A of the California Constitution. That's Prop 13. It's irrefutable. Further, the two-thirds vote requirement is not a new idea. It has been in the California Constitution since 1879. For more than a century, local property owners have been protected against excessive bond debt by the requirement that local bonds, repaid only by property owners, need a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

The logic behind a two thirds vote requirement for special taxes is the same. While everyone can vote on special taxes, they are often paid only by property owners through parcel taxes, bonds, assessments, and fees. In conclusion, I would like to. Note that it has been argued that ACA1 does not raise taxes. It just puts the question to the voters. But this Legislature would not place ACA1 on the ballot if it did not support the bill's intentions.

If this Legislature votes to put ACA1 on the ballot, it wants to make it easier to raise taxes, and I ask that you vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing no one come to the microphone. Moderator, please queue up anyone on the phone line. Support or opposition.

Thank you. For in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. We'll go to line 23.

Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association, in support.

Thank you. We'll go to line 11.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jean Hurst, calling in today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Boards of Supervisors of the counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Clara. In strong support.

Thank you. Line nine.

Thank you, Chair and members. Tim Madden, representing the Washington Township Health Care District, in strong support.

Thank you. Line 26.

Good evening, Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California, in very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 27.

Afternoon, Chairman, members. James, with the California State Council of Laborers. We are in strong support.

Jaime Minor on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, in support.

Thank you. Line 10.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce, here in opposition.

Thank you. Line 28.

Thank you. Line 19.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Line 12. Line 12, your line is open. You have us on mute. We'll move on to line 13. Line 13, are you on the line? Line 29. Can you hear me, Mr. Chair? Okay.

Tobias Wolken with the California Taxpayers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right. We've taken our support in opposition. We'll come back to my colleagues. We have a motion. Anyone have? Yes, Mr. Seyarto. Go ahead.

For our tax experts, it was noted that this is needed because several lot of community cities, et cetera, need extra money for fire services, extra money for whatever it is that they're in dire need of. But I do know several cities did sales tax measures that did exactly that, and they were 50% plus one. So how did those get passed? Is that mechanism still there? Or did we pass something in the last couple of years to get rid of that threshold?

General taxes only require a simple majority.

So cities can do a general tax with a simple majority still. So this is more something that affects property taxes, special taxes, and other special taxes. Cities have been doing that. They're doing their general taxes to address the issues that they have. And hopefully their citizens are holding their feet to the fire because when they say we're going to do this and this with that money. That's what happens with that money.

And I think to the other point that there's all of these needs out there, infrastructure needs, water quality, all that stuff that's out there, that if we can't make a dent in that stuff with $300 billion a year that this state makes, then I would offer that we're probably spending our money a little bit foolishly.

This is another measure that I feel like is once again trying to take a bite out of those protections that people put in place for a reason. And for the reasons I stated before, I got to oppose it. So thank you.

Your sponsor would like to respond. Is that okay?

Sure. Absolutely.

You looked like you were hovering to respond.

I didn't know if someone was going to call me. I just wanted to add that special districts don't have general tax authority. So when they put forward a tax to the people, it is a special tax under the current law. So I just wanted to add that context.

All right. And Madam Speaker, Pro Temp, as far as the issue raised by the realtors and the one to four house thing, could you comment upon that and how we see that working itself out going forward?

Absolutely. So, Mr. Chairman, as I told the elections chair yesterday, on the record, I agree that local government should not use ACA1 proceeds to compete with regular homebuyers, and we will continue working with them to reach an agreement. I also told him this is the reason why we added language to ACA1 that allows cleanup legislation. We want to very much make sure we can reach a compromise, and we will do that immediately.

And we have plans that will work on this all through the fall. But I think we can come to a good solution. Can I make one other comment while we're here? I just want to make sure you realize is that this ACA has more accountability than anything you've seen. And I want to just go through a few of those because maybe you're not aware of them. The funds are used only for housing and supportive infrastructure, no salaries or operating expenses.

The local initiative expenditure plan must identify specific projects or programs to be funded and certify alternative funding sources have been evaluated. Annual and independent performance and financial audits until all proceeds have been expended to ensure funds are expended as intended. Audits posted and available to the public requires appointment of Citizens Oversight Committee to oversee funds are expended as approved by the voters.

No entity owned or controlled by a local official voting to put an ACA1 initiative on the ballot will be allowed to bid for working funding by that initiative. The state auditor, and that's why we're here, shall review and oversee financial and performance audits. Requires members of a Citizen Oversight Committee to receive educational training about bonds and fiscal oversight.

All proceeds of an ACA1 initiative shall be committed for the projects and programs in the expenditure plan before a local government can proceed with another initiative under ACA1. All AC1A initiative, funding shall be spent on projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction where the initiative is passed. We put in all the guardrails to make sure that we had this covered. We dotted our I's, crossed our T's, and I look forward to continuing to work with the realtors.

And I appreciate the conversations that were happening all day and the good faith that you're both showing and have faith in both of you to figure that out when we come back. A fist bump. I like it. I like it. And that's your close.

That's my close.

We have a motion from Senator Wahab. With that, we'll call the roll to do pass to the Senate Floor.

ACA1. The motion is be adopted, referred to the Senate Floor. Senator Portantino. Aye. Portantino, aye. Jones. No. Jones, no. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Bradford. Aye. Bradford, aye. Seyarto. No. Seyarto, no. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye.

That bill is out five to two. And, Ashby, you get the final trivia question of the legislative session. What was Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's first movie?

His first movie?

What is the question?

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's first movie was? Folks have already yelled it out. Scorpion King. With that concludes the Senate calendar for the Assembly Committee for the year. Congratulations.