Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning. We'd like to call the order the Appropriations Committee meeting for May 17. We have before us 118 bills to consider this morning as a part of our regular ordered hearing. Before we begin, I'd like to just go over a few rules, as we always do, of how we operate and create order in this Committee. First, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Ortega for filling in for Member Wilson today.

I would also note that the Committee will be pulling AB 175 Mckinnor from the file today. I'd also like to just make a quick statement as it regards to Assembly Bill 538, the Regionalization Bill. Interactions with my colleagues and stakeholders throughout the west persuade me that there is strong and widespread interest in working together on the details of governance and operations of a Western regional transmission organization. I'm putting AB 538 on hold for now to allow that to happen.

I'm hopeful of rapid progress opening the way for legislative action at the earliest possible date. Now back to our rules for operation. In this meeting, we encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at Apro Assembly CA Gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its stream on the Assembly website. Assembly CA Gov Today's Events we encourage the public to monitor the Committee website for updates. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today, for which the author Wade presentation before the close of the regular ordered hearing. Testimony on any such Bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, in position on the Bill.

The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door. I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of General courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes.

Now, I will look to see if we have a quorum. I'm not sure if we have a quorum just yet. So what we'll do is we'll move to those bills to be presented to us today. The first Bill before us will be Aguiar-Curry, AB 659, and that as a do pass. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the do pass recommendation, the opportunity to present on the fiscal impacts of AB 659. Because this Committee only deals with those impacts, I will keep this short. I've been working on bringing this proposal forward for five years. During that time, over 203,000 Americans have developed cancer and more than 35,000 people have died from HPV related cancers.

But I know this is not the Committee's job to calculate human costs because we have removed the enforcement mechanisms from the Bill at all levels of education and the parental notification on the vaccine will be done as part of the existing notifications from school districts in the statistically prevalent languages of the school's population. The state costs of compliance are estimated at 20,000 per year.

I believe these costs will be costs to be well justified by the tens of thousands of lives that will be saved by this new law. Here with me to speak in support is Molly Robeson and Vice President of Government affairs for Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, and Taylor Jackson, Deputy Director of Government affairs at California Health plus advocates.

Thank you. I believe we have a quorum, so we'll call the role to establish a quorum.

Holden.

Here.

Dahle. Brian. Calderon.

Here.

Wendy Carrillo. Dixon. Fong. Hart. Lowenthal. Mathis. Papin. Pellerin. Robert Reevis. Sanchez.

Quorum is established.

Weber. Ortega.

Here.

Quorum is established. We'll hear now from your witness.

Thank you. Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We represent the seven affiliates in the state who provide sexual and reproductive health care to over 1.8 million patient visits every year. Planned Parenthood is proud to support AB 659 to improve uptake of the HPV vaccine among young people. AB 659 would require coverage of the HPV vaccine in Family pack for people under 18, closing a gap in coverage that currently exists.

As the largest family pack provider in the state, Planned Parenthood is eager to see this coverage possible so that our health centers can provide this vaccine to patients when they're already seeking sexual and reproductive health care services in our health centers. As the analysis notes, the costs on the state are relatively minor and this Bill will improve access to life saving care. So I respectfully urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this Bill, either in favor or opposed?

Everyone.

Oh, I'm sorry. We do have one more witness, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members. Taylor Jackson with California Health plus advocates. We represent California's almost 1300 community clinics, free clinics, rural health centers and federally qualified health centers. We are in strong support of AB six, five, nine and I will note the fiscal tag of 20,000 for notifying families is relatively small when you consider the lives that could be saved if the Bill is implemented.

And in addition, the long term savings to the healthcare system for less folks ultimately requiring cancer treatment should also be considered. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentations. That's been moved by Member Pappen. A second is in order. Second by Mr. Hart. Okay, we'll hear from the public.

Mr. Chair and Members Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare foundation, which in addition being the largest provider of HIV care, is also a major provider of STD prevention, care and treatment across the state. Very strong support for this Bill. Thank you.

Olivia Michaels, co founder of V is for Vaccine. We oppose unless amended further.

Joshua Coleman, resident of Roseville, California, co founder of V is for Vaccine and also opposed the Bill unless further amended to include clear language that this is not a mandate.

Good morning. Ryan Souza, representing Essential Access Health in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak?

Hi, thank you for your time. My name is Sarah Long. I am a nurse practitioner and an RN out of Oakland in Richmond. I am just asking that you consider the wording expected. I serve minorities and the underserved and I'm very concerned about a language barrier. And I just ask that you consider that many of my patients have aces. They have adverse childhood events. That happens. And I'm just asking that you change the wording, please, and make it clear so there's no language barriers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Seeing no other Member from the public that would like to comment, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments? We do have a motion. Would you like to close?

Yeah, I would like to close. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Members, $20,000 per year to prevent 37,000 new cancer patients. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The bill's out on a b roll call. Weber not voting.

Thank you.

You're presenting on 1176. And that does have a do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the staff, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present AB 1176, and thank you for the do pass recommendation. This bill is sponsored by Climate Plan California and supported by a wide range of groups invested in the environment and a clean energy future. AB 1176 encourages high-level planning and strategies at the local level to meet the electrification needs of our community's residents, visitors, employees, and businesses. California has adopted ambitious climate goals that require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation and building sectors. To meet these goals, we will need over 1 million electric chargers to support 8 million electric vehicles anticipated on the road by 2030, and even more to meet the state's 2035 electric vehicle mandate.

Ensuring that EV charging and building electrification are available to everyone, including lower-income communities, renters, and people who live in multifamily housing is crucial, and establishing the necessary charging and transmission infrastructure to support vehicle fleets and small businesses requires on-the-ground knowledge of our local communities. Local governments are crucial partners in meeting our climate goals because they know the needs of their communities best and because local planning is needed to assure that everyone at all income levels and in all ZIP codes can charge their cars and afford to power their homes with clean energy. As the analysis states, the bill incurs no cost to the state.

We've agreed to take amendments that are not yet in print, which will give more flexibility to local governments to comply with the bill and reduce their costs, including options outside the general plan process. We are continuing to work with the American Planning Association, the League of Cities, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the California Building Industry Association on additional amendments that will incorporate their feedback. With me today is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair of California Environmental Voters to provide some additional information.

Thank you. I'm Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters and we proudly support AB 1176 alongside the Climate Center, Climate Plan, California Environment, California Sierra Club, IBW, Local Union 569, and many other organizations. California Environmental Voters represents over 110,000 members with a mission to protect and enhance the environment and health of all California communities by advancing critical policy that will help us equitably reach our state zero emissions goals. Personally, I stem from an area of the state that has historically been susceptible to environmental racism and record rates of pollution from multiple sectors. The urgency to move towards clean energy to protect communities like mine across the state couldn't be greater.

While this bill already has zero cost to the state, I applaud the author in his office in working with all stakeholders to make it more flexible for local governments to meet the provisions of the bill, including lower implementation costs and options outside of the general plan process. Thank you and I respectfully urge the Chairs and members aye vote of AB 1176. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Members of the public that would like to comment on 1176? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. Any comments or questions? Come on.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors, currently in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. See no other from the public. Is there a motion? Would you like to close?

Thank you, members and Chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye vote.

Thank you. The Bill is out on a b roll call. Boerner you're presenting. AB 73 has a do pass.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Thank you for the recommendation. AB 73 would make intersections for bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians safer by allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs when approaching an intersection. Specifically, the Bill will allow individuals 18 years of age and older to yield when approaching a stop sign at an intersection. Make it a six year pilot program. Limit the stoppage yield to two lane roads at stop sign controlled intersections.

Add that miners who fail to stop at a stop sign will get a warning ticket for the first offense and require CHP to collect and evaluate data from the pilot and submit a report to the Legislature on the effects of this change in law. FoR purposes of this Committee, the cost estimate for CHP to collect and evaluate the data and prepare the report are minor and absorbable. I respectfully ask for an aye votete and in the interest of time, I have no witnesses with me today.

Okay. We appreciate that. Anyone from the public that would like to speak on the Bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. It's been moved by Senator Hart. Ortega. Calderon. There's a second. The Bill is out on a b roll call.

Thank you.

Member Schiavo. AB 911, do pass as amended.

Good morning. Excuse me, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 911 is a cleanup measure to AB 721 by Bloom in 2021 and provides confidence to affordable housing developers who want to purchase real estate for 100% affordable housing developments. I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments to ensure AB 911 does not create unnecessary financial burdens for local governments.

In the interest of time, I don't have witnesses, but wanted to mention that this is sponsored by SPUR and supported by organizations who are committed to bringing much needed and affordable housing online. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from the public on AB 911? It's been moved by Calderon. Second by Hart. The Bill is out on a b roll call.

Thank you.

Mr. Carrillo, presenting AB 965 a do pass.

Good morning, Mr. Chairs and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 965. AB 965 seeks to help broadband permits get processed more efficiently so our constituents can more quickly benefit from high speed internet. When a broadband project is being deployed in a community, oftentimes there are numerous locations where identical telecommunication infrastructure has been installed to provide high speed internet, they are very simple and very similar.

This Bill ensures that groups of nearly identical broadband permits can be processed together in a batch. I am authoring this Bill because I know firsthand how these permits work. I used to process this as a planner for over 20 years. I work in cities of Coachella, Desert Springs, and the City of Palmdale.

If this Bill was in place at the time when I was a planner, it would have decreased my workload in having to approve every single permit one by one, and would have allowed me to use my time in other areas of need, such as in housing entitlements. AB 965 also strikes the right balance between efficiency and statewide broadband deployment and local control, and I want to be clear that local jurisdictions will still maintain full control.

Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine high volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually. Given the public increased reliance on high speed Internet access and the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, job creation, housing affordability, and emission reductions, it is in California's best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible, while again maintaining local control.

Joining me to testify in support and answer any questions is Dan Schweizer, Director of External affairs for Crown Castle.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Dan Schweitzer. I'm the Director of External affairs for Crown Castle, the nation's largest shared telecommunications infrastructure provider. Building, operating, and maintaining broadband for a variety of customers, including K through 12 school districts, local governments, universities, ISPs, and cell phone carriers.

Crowncastle works with local jurisdictions every day in the state and across the country to deploy broadband. AB 965 reflects the best practice of permit batching. The Bill simply requires local jurisdictions to make a decision, and this is a key point of the Bill does not require local jurisdictions to approve, but rather to act on the application. It doesn't require them to approve the permits, as I indicated, but just to act on the application.

AB 965 is needed because even though some local governments are using permit batching for broadband projects, many are not. Permit approvals make the difference between communities getting connected to high speed internet in two to three months versus multiple months or even over a year. Many local jurisdictions continue to process broadband permits one at a time, limit permit batching, or have the permits go through several different departments at various times, which unnecessarily delays an already bureaucratic process.

This Bill will help both public and private sector broadband projects serve your constituents in months instead of years. The public is counting on all of us, both the public and private sector, to get communities connected to high speed internet as soon as possible. Crown Castle is a partner in this effort, and we thank you for your.Aye vote.

Mr. Chair. With me, is also Ms. Sarah Wiltfong, the Director of Advocacy and Policy for the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Sarah Wiltfong, the Director of Policy and Advocacy for the Los Angeles County Business Federation. On behalf of our 240 business organizations representing 420,000 employers with 5 million employees throughout Los Angeles County, we ask you to support AB 965. This Bill will strengthen California's economy because it will create a more consistent broadband permitting process, allowing projects to be built quicker. 75% of California voters support this.

Voters, businesses, and employees all want streamlined permitting processes for broadband projects because we all benefit from telehealth to education, public safety to job creation, housing affordability through remote work, and the associated emission reductions. All of this is made possible through high-speed Internet access. In the coming years, we're going to see a huge influx of broadband projects as a result of public and private investments. We are facing a December 2024 deadline to spend billions of federal broadband dollars or risk losing it.

AB 965 creates a framework where broadband installers can submit a batch of nearly identical broadband permits to local jurisdictions at the same time in order for those permits to be reviewed and acted on in a reasonable amount of time. AB 965 is critically important because it will help communities get connected to high speed internet in months instead of years. This Bill strikes the right balance with local jurisdictions and retains local controls. And for that, we ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a main witness that has notified our office that they would like to testify. Is there a Paul McGavin?

Sir, he's my colleague. He's stuck in traffic. Can I have his time for four minutes total? This is a very complicated issue, and I think just to equal the amount.

You know, That's fine. We have him down, so if you're taking his place.

Yeah, but I also have time, so for four minutes total.

I'm sorry, you're just going to get the two minutes. So if you want to testify as a witness, have a seat and we'll happy to. Or you can testify from where you are. But you have two minutes.

Yeah, I'm up next. Whenever you want.

The floor is yours. Two minutes.

Please ask me questions so I can explain further. My name is Kevin Modus. I've been working in the area of broadband permitting for the past 10 years with Congress in DC. I am a medical social worker. Do not pass this Bill because it'll be very costly to the state, local governments, and citizens trying to protect their value of their property. AB 965 allows wireless companies to batch their cell tower applications 50 or more.

If not processed within 60 to 90 days, they will be deemed approved. This Bill also includes wording that this is a matter of statewide concern, not municipal concern. Cutting out local input and control completely. Consider the economic cost of more residents leaving the state as we give away residents rights to protect their property value. Also consider business leaving the state for real high-speed broadband fiber to the premise, which is what other states are providing.

Also keep in mind this federal funding from the feds, which I understand very thoroughly, requires speeds that cannot be provided by wireless need to be fiber to the premise so will not help us bring down those funds. With this Bill, we have completely lost the balance between business and community needs. This is the worst permitting acceleration Bill I have seen in terms of unintended costs.

Keep in mind, this Bill will allow wireless companies to sue local and state governments if their transmitters are not deemed approved, no matter where they choose to put them, even if it's in front of your home. Consider the political cost. I have seen communities organized to unseat elected officials over one poorly placed transmitter. This will be 50 at a time. This will incite communities to pull resources and sue state and local government. Consider the increase in legal defense costs.

Wireless companies have spent $30 million defending a conglomeration of dozens of state lawsuits in DC involving wireless, cancer, and neurological effects.

Can you bring your comments to a close?

Okay, the World Health Organization is considering whether to increase the classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen to a class one human carcinogen based on the NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences studies that found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage. Also, keep in mind that the Italian courts have made a causal link between wireless and cancer. None of this has been taken into account by our FCC. That's a captured Commission. We need to be protecting our residents from a very well established risk.

Thank you.

And using fiber to the premise, which is what other states, other countries are using to compete and create real job growth.

You're time has expired. Now, if you'd like, you can have a seat as a witness, and if there are questions from the Committee, then you'll be available and they can. You can come and sit right here up front. If you'd like. We'll turn to the public if there is anyone here that would like to testify. Name, organization and position on the Bill, either in favor or opposed.

Good morning. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband, the Broadband Association. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband, in support. Also here for US Telecom, the Broadband Association in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Jonathan Arambel, on behalf of CTIA, the trade Association for the Wireless Industry. Also in support.

Malak Tang with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. In support.

Chair and Members, Nate Solov, on behalf of the following organizations who can't be here today, Bay Area Council, California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Communications Association, California Wireless Association, Consolidated Communications, Frontier Communications, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association, and the Wireless Infrastructure Association. All in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Patrick Welch, California Municipal Utilities Association, opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there questions? Is there a motion? A question? Dr. Weber.

To the opposition, I guess my question is, did you have anything else that you did not get a chance to say that you think the Committee should take into consideration before we vote?

Yeah, I think that. Thank you very much. So, in terms of liability, there is a federal case looking at cell phones and cancer that could become a class action lawsuit. This could mean catastrophic liability for California, given the number of people that are going to be exposed by these new transmitters. Also, keep in mind that no reinsurance. The state is self insured, but it has reinsurance. No reinsurance covers biological and health effects from wireless technology, from wireless emissions.

And That's because the Italian courts have ruled clearly that there's a causal link between wireless and cancer. The other thing to take into account in terms of costs, we've been talking about reducing the carbon footprints, the cost of spending to reduce our carbon footprints, which the California has invested in greatly. Given that wireless is a big energy waster, if you think about wireless, it sprays emissions all over. It uses very little for actual connection. All that is wasted.

Currently, it is estimated that 20% of our energy consumption is used by wireless and its infrastructure, and that by 2030, with 5G, 30% of that will be used for wireless and wireless infrastructure. The feds understand this. That's why in their state grants, they have put in performance standards that are aimed at 100 megabytes, up and down, symmetrical, which can only be provided by fiber to the premise.

Other states are using fiber to the premise and generating tremendous economic growth and jobs growth and increased tax revenue, That's a loss opportunity cost. If you were to proceed with this Bill.

Can I just interrupt for just a moment? I appreciate the Member giving you an opportunity to have additional comments, but we're not going to go on endlessly with a lot of. So if there's a key point that you want to take the next 30 seconds to make.

30 seconds would be great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Yeah. Take into account the increased cost for cybercrime and cybersecurity given with this Bill, because you will have thousands more of entry points. Also take into account the revenues you're going to be losing due to the federal government and then the carbon.

That's a good place to end. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else on the panel that would like to ask any questions of any of the witnesses or the author? Is there a motion? Mr. Mathis has made the motion. Second by Ms. Dixon. Would you like to close, Mr. Carrillo?

I just want to say thank you, Members, for allowing me to present this Bill. And I just respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Bill is out on an A roll call.

Thank you.

Congratulations, Mr. Ting. You have two bills, AB 480. I'm sorry, Mr. Garcia was first. Mr. Garcia, AB 918. Bill has a do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. The analysis states the Bill before you has no fiscal impact. This is a local issue, a local solution to a local issue addressing health care crisis in Imperial County. Respectfully ask for aye vote. This is AB 918.

Okay. It was moved by Calderon and Ortega. We'll turn to the public. Is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on the Bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Bill is out on an A roll call. And you're also here to present AB 1533 for the Committee?

That's correct, Mr. Chair. And again, as the analysis states, minimal impact to the state budget. This is an omnibus Bill for the Committee. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we'll turn to the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to comment on the Bill? None. We'll bring it back to the Committee. The Bill is out on an A roll call with Dahle not voting.

Okay, Mr. Ting. You have AB 480 and AB 1033.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If it's okay, I'd like to present AB 480 first. AB 480 is a reintroduction of my Bill, AB 2357, which passed out the Committee last year. The Bill has minor and absorbable costs for HCD and minor costs to local cease to enact the Bill. The Bill strengthens the Surplus Lands act by closing enforcement loopholes for lands that are leased and lands that are sold for less than market value. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 480.

Okay. Member of this of the public. Is there anyone you would like to comment? We'll welcome your comments now.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brian Augusta. On behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, one of the co sponsors of this measure will help increase the supply of affordable housing and we would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council, in support.

Ethan Egler. On behalf of the City of Corona, in respectful opposition.

Anyone else that would like to make a comment from the public, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Lowenthal. Second Papan, I believe. Would you like to close?

Just ask for an aye vote.

Then that'll be roll call. 1033.

If I could. I'm here to present AB 1033. This removes the state's prohibition around separately conveying ADUs and allowing ADUs to be sold as condos and only as condos. The Bill has an opt-in provision to allow ADUs be separately conveyed, meaning cities would have to opt-in to allow their residents to participate in the law. The Bill has no cost to the state and minor cost to locals. Respect for us for your Aye vote on AB 1033.

We'll turn to the public. Oh, you have a witness.

One witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. My name is Louis Marante. I'm Vice President of Public policy with the Barrier Council, one of the sponsors of this Bill. In the cities around this country that allow ADU condos. ADU condos sell for between 30 and 60% lower than commensurate homes in the same neighborhood. That's a real affordable housing and a homeownership opportunity that we're excited about.

The Bill has no cost to the state because any mandate would not be reimbursable as local governments can recover for any costs this program creates from fees on housing. I urge your support. Thanks

Thank you. Any more comments from the public?

Ethan Nagel. On behalf of the City of Eastvale, in respectful opposition.

Opposition. We don't have a witness. This is really just taking at this point, public comment. Name organization and position on the Bill.

We can't testify in opposition to the Bill.

You're not one of the witnesses that we. We don't have a witness list that has your. Tell me your name. We have no one down to speak in opposition as a witness.

Jennifer Speck on behalf of the Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have expressed opposition to the Bill in previous committees. I was unaware that we had to submit a request to testify. Is that a new process?

No, but we'll give you the courtesy to.

My sincerest apologies. I will make sure to check in with Committee staff next time.

The realtors, among other real estate business service organizations included within the coalition letter, continue to oppose AB 1033 despite recent amendments. AB 1033 continues to come with the potential for immense unintended financial consequences to homeowners and lenders as it permits the separate sale of ADUs using an upside down condo mapping process while simultaneously continuing to open the door to any form of conveyance as the bell is silent on those. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conventional lending rules are clear.

Thank you.

ADUs must be encumbered with a mortgage with a primary dwelling, which is enumerated in Fannie Mae's servicing Guide, subpart B Two, Chapter B 2-3. While we are aware of the practices in Oregon and Texas, those activities appear to be in conflict with existing federal lending rules that, in addition to prohibiting the separate sale of ADUs, limit ADUs to one per parcel and prohibits the enterprises from purchasing loans where ADUs are present on a duplex, triplex or fourplex lot.

Freddie Mac Servicing Rule 5000, Chapter 561.2 Follow the same model for eligibility as Fannie Mae, as does Cal FHA, who must conform to these same servicing rules.

We have also learned that ADU developers and lenders in Austin, Texas and Portland, Oregon are asking for forgiveness, not for permission, from our federal regulators, as they're using a loophole in the federal enterprise's waiver of Project rule to facilitate the non reviewed conduit conversions, which has the potential for disastrous financial consequences to consumers who could be subject to foreclosure for violating an explicitly prohibited activity. This is very dangerous as ADU developers are playing a game with homeowners and lenders assets.

Given California's experience with pace over the last decade and a half, homeowners splitting their lots into condos pursuant to AB 1033 will unknowingly be limited to hard money loans which carry much higher interest rates. In some instances double to triple offered to conventional financing opportunities I want to be clear. Establishing a condo conversion after construction of an ADU will likely be seen as an end run around federal servicing guidelines, and homeowners who participate in 1033 will experience great financial loss as currently drafted.

On one final note, the realtors feel it is imperative that AB 1033, at a minimum, also contain an owner occupancy requirement similar to that which was included in SB 9 by Pro Tem Atkins in 2021. Until all of our concerns are resolved, we respectfully request a No vote on AB 1033, but continue to look forward to working with the author and his staff.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to just make a comment regarding their position on the Bill, the name and organization, if any?

Good morning. Indira Mcdonald, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, respectfully opposed.

Is there anyone else? Okay, we'll come back to the Committee and see if there's any comments or questions on behalf of position on the Bill. Seeing none, is there a motion? Lowenthal. Would you like to close?

Just very quickly. Again, I think that there was a lot of Jargon and opposition's testimony, but let me just be very clear. This has nothing to do with Pace loans. I'm sorry for all the folks who had a negative experience with Pace loans. Pace loans were loans that were attached to our property taxes for clean energy or for energy efficiency. This is nothing to do with that. This is no different than a duplex or a triplex going through a condo conversion process.

There are very set rules on how to do that. There's set financing, and in terms of financing, you at the very end of it go through a refinancing process. I know because I've gone through a condo conversion process with me and my family where we took a duplex and went through that condo conversion process. This would be no different. You have homeowners, property owners doing that all over the state already. Again, our laws, our Bill is to conform with that process.

We are working very closely with the lenders and we anticipate that we'll be able to get their opposition off hopefully by the time we reach the floor. Unfortunately, with the realtors, it is a little bit puzzling how the realtors would be opposed to really to a Bill that would offer their membership a lot more opportunities to sell homes as well as open up homeownership opportunities for many Californians. With that respect, That's why I vote on AP 1033.

Thank you. The Bill is out on a B roll call. Ms. Wicks.

How are you?

You're presenting on AB 1319.

I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1319 enacts targeted modifications to governance structure of Bay Area Housing Financing Authority, also known as BAFA. BAFA is governed by MTC and ABAG, the sponsors of this Bill. In getting BAFA up and running, they and partners in the affordable housing community noticed that there were a handful of places where the law, one, lacked clarity, two, made implementation challenging, or three, didn't reflect recent evolutions in best practices.

This Bill addresses these issues so that BAFA can best fulfill its mission to help ensure housing affordability for lower income residents of the Bay Area. This has no state cost and minor local costs. We have no primary witnesses here to testify today. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Moved my Lowenthal. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on behalf of this Bill or an opposition saying none? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I vote the Bill is out on a broll call. Mr. Lowe, didn't see you sitting back there. It wasn't for Kala. We would have missed you. Presenting an AB 996.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. AB 996 requires the DCA Board and Bureaus to have a conflict of interest policy and respectfully ask for your Aye vote. This Bill has minor and absorbable costs.

Thank you. It's been moved. If there's a second? Public comment on the Bill, seen on the Bill is out on an A roll call. Mr. Bryan for Berman, welcome. You're here to present Mr. Berman's Bill 1598. It does enjoy a do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 1598 on behalf of Assembly Member Berman and as his new co-author to this Bill. This Bill would expand what is covered in the Firearm Safety Certification Test to explicitly include the potential consequences of bringing a firearm into the home, as well as information about restraining orders. This Bill would also require that a pamphlet covering the benefits and risks of owning a firearm be given to all prospective firearm purchasers.

As the analysis notes, this is minor cost to the state. We respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Been moved by Pellerin. Second by Fong. Any Member from the public that would like to comment?

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Mountain View in support.

Seeing no one else here to testify, this Bill is out on B roll call.

Mr. Berman thanks you.

Let's see. Ms. Dixon, you're presenting for Waldron? AB 1741, do pass. Please.

Ready? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. I am presenting AB 1741 on behalf of Assemblywoman Waldron, the clinical lab industry is facing a workforce shortage, especially with clinical laboratory scientists. AB 1741 seeks to address this workforce shortage by allowing qualified unlicensed personnel to conduct certain tasks under the supervision of a licensed professional. This will allow laboratories to meet high testing demand while maintaining access to accurate care. These changes will address workforce shortages in labs, improve testing capacity and create new jobs in the industry.

As the Committee has noted in the analysis, the Bill has minor and absorbable costs to the California Department of Public Health. We have worked with the opposition to accept a series of amendments in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. There is one outstanding issue dealing with preventative maintenance that we are continuing to work with opposition to address. I have a representative from Quest Diagnostics and the California Clinical Laboratory Association here to testify in support and answer any questions.

Good morning. Mike Robeson here on behalf of Quest Diagnostics. We're a co sponsor on the Bill. I think summary Member Dixon explained the Bill pretty well and there's minor absorbable fiscal on it. And again to reiterate, we are working with the opposition on the last remaining issue. We're hopeful to resolve that and ask for your aye vote.

Michael Arnold with the California Clinical Laboratory Association. We have a real crisis in the laboratories these days because many of our CLSs are retiring and we need to do something to address the need or we aren't going to be able to provide high quality laboratory services. This Bill is going to help us do that and we strongly urge your support.

Been moved by the Vice Chair, sir. 2nd. 2nd by Member Hart. We'll turn to the public. Any comments from the public? Seeing none. This Bill is out on an a roll call with Ortega not voting.

Thank you very much.

We're going to give a courtesy for Dr. Weber to present at this point and you're presenting on AB 1011 that enjoys a do pass.

Good morning chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1011 which is the first step in addressing a critical new frontier of privacy policy. This defines the new technology and law prevents any organization or company from selling private, sensitive consumer data and has no cost to the state. We are working with the opposition and looking forward to continuing conversations with them. With me today in support is Justin Fanslau, representing Findhelp.

Good morning. Special thank you to Assembly Member Weber for authoring this Bill. I represent Findhelp. We're the sponsor of the Bill. We operate a closed loop referral system that helps people navigate and find social care services that are not either prescribed from their Doctor or that they themselves are not able to find on their own. Very happy that the amendments that we were able to work through in Committee and are glad to see a DuPas here today. If they have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Wonderful. Thank you. We'll turn to public comment. Is there anyone they'd like to comment on behalf of AB 1011?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Faith Conley with the Weideman Group on behalf of Unite Us here in opposition. But thank the author and sponsor for working with us continuing forward.

Thank you. Seeing no one else from the public that would like to speak, we'll turn to the Committee, seeing no comments. Is there a motion? Thank you. Bill is out on an A roll call with Dixon not voting. Ms. Carrillo, would you like to present Senate Member Friedman's Bill, AB 894? Do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I am presenting AB 894 on behalf of Assemblymember Friedman. Today. Excessive parking comes at a high economic, environmental and social cost. AB 894 requires public agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with the public, a private entity or other users and requires public agencies to allow shared parking spaces to count toward parking requirements in specific circumstances. Under this Bill, no one is forced or required to share parking lots.

However, if property owners want to share their underutilized parking lots with others that need parking, they may do so. This Bill has no state cost and on behalf of the author respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Moved by Papan second by Hart. Public comment in favor or opposed?

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Eastvale in respectful opposition.

Seeing no one else from the public wishing to speak. Bring back to the Committee. See no questions. The Bill is out on AB roll call with Mathis not voting. Mr. Hart, move the Bill second. How about that?

I guess I'm done. Thank you, chair and Members, AB 1412 will allow defendants with borderline personality disorder to be eligible for pretrial diversion programs at the discretion of a judge. We estimate AB 1412 will be of minimal cost to the state by diverting mentally ill defendants from correctional facilities into existing treatment programs. Presenting with me today is Katie McSweeney with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies.

Thank you, Chair Holden and Committee Members. My name is Catey McSweeney. I'm with the California Council of Behavioral Health Agencies, CBHA. We're proud sponsors of AB 1412. We believe that this Bill will reduce costs to the state by diverting close to 600 people with borderline personality disorder. Into community based treatment per year. The Legislative Analyst Office estimates that it costs about 106,000 to incarcerate someone per year in California. Reducing this to a daily average means that it costs approximately $290 per day to detain someone in California's justice system.

Therefore, we anticipate that AB 1412 would save $174,000 for each day that those individuals were not incarcerated. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important measure.

Thank you. We'll turn to public comment. Seeing none, we'll bring back to the Committee. We do have a motion. The Bill is out with Republicans not voting, and Dixon and I. Thank you. Ms. Papan, presenting AB 893 as a do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the past 15 year, new businesses have emerged as disruptors, forcing change and adaptation in the car rental space. Peer to peer rental platforms are a new avenue for individuals to rent their private vehicles to consumers.

Unlike traditional car rental services, Peertopeer rentals do not currently adhere to airport regulation, and the unpermitted sharing of private vehicle sharing program vehicles at airports has led to a myriad of issues, including vehicles left behind, abandoned or waiting at a terminal areas for lengthy periods of time, increased traffic congestion, and a loss of revenue, revenue which is critical to ensure that public airports are not a drain on taxpayers.

AB 893 will require private vehicle sharing platforms to obtain a permit prior to facilitating track actions at an airport and end the taxpayer subsidization of such operations. Furthermore, AB 893 will address additional gaps in current law by requiring PFSP platforms adhere to transparent price disclosure regulations and require such platforms to contribute to California's tourism marketing programs. This Bill has no reported state costs and is expected to generate 4 million annually in tourism assessments.

AB 893 ensures that California is not picking winners and losers in an industry through applying regulations to one business and not another. With me to testify today in support of the Bill is John Moffatt on behalf of Enterprise and Jim Lights with the Airports Council.

Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, John Moffatt on behalf of Enterprise appreciate the Committee analysis on this Bill. As it noted, no state costs and potential net benefit to California's tourism program. And on the airport related issues, I'll defer to Mr. Lights. We ask for your iboat today.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council. This issue has a fairly long history. About six years, when car share services began operating at airports, they were doing so without permits. SFO and LAX both sued the primary company in this particular mode. Judge initially found in favor of SFO in April of 2020. And since then, as we've come out of the pandemic, the car share services have begun to seek permits at airports.

Now, why do you need an airport permit? If you're a company seeking to offer goods and services to air travel passengers for profit, you have to have an agreement with the airport. Every other mode of airport ground transportation currently has permits. Taxis, TNCs, Limos, long distance coach services, all have operating permits. Typically that will provide for 10% of gross to the airport. And in some cases, like TNCs and taxis, you're paying a trip fee.

And so this Bill, section three specifically, will compel all ground transportation services that advertise at airports to actually have permits. And so, to this point, the state has never played favorites in terms of one type of ground transportation service provider versus others. And we think Section three will compel permits for all providers of that service. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Larisa Cespedes, here on behalf of Turo, in opposition, unfortunately, to the Bill, we appreciate the time spent on this Bill. Turo has about 20,000 hosts in California. These are individuals that put their car on the platform to earn money to offset the car of their vehicles. This has been their ability to do for over 10 years. They're currently regulated. There are consumer protections regulating this industry, currently in the insurance code and the vehicle code.

Unfortunately, the position that we're in here is where there is a company enterprise that is attempting to create and further a market disadvantage for Turo. This is something that they've done across the country and something that it's actually the only rental car company that is doing it. With regards to the airports, Turo currently has six permits at airports. Five are coming online.

These airports will include LAX, Ontario, San Francisco is still pending negotiation, and we absolutely agree that we want permits at our airports in order to operate. The problem with this Bill is that it creates a permit that is modeled after the rental car permit. And the infrastructure that a Turo host uses is much different than a rental car company. We're talking about rental car companies that use car washes, gas stations, shuttles, and so on.

So it just really doesn't make sense for a Turo host or Turo Customer to be obligated to have the same kind of permit or pay the same kind of fees as a rental car company. For these reasons, we continue to be opposed to the Bill. I'll mention that there are five other sections of this Bill, some of which that don't deal with airports that also create a market disadvantage for our hosts, many of which, I forgot to even add, are people of color.

So we're talking about this potentially impacting a community that is just trying to make ends meet and help offset the cost of their car.

Thank you. I will turn to the public. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this Bill?

Michael Arnold, representing the Hollywood Burbank Airport, in strong support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jonathan Arambel, just filling in on behalf of TechNet to register their opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other public comment at this moment, I will turn back to the Committee. Are there any questions? Mr. Brian?

Well, this is one of those fun bills that has a lot of nuance and a lot of good That's trying to be done by the author. And so I appreciate that. It sounds like there's going to be a lot of conversation that needs to continue to go on. I recognize the point of individual drivers who are loaning their cars out through Turo, paying down student loans, saving up for the housing down payment.

I guess my question for Turo and the fact that That's different than a company like enterprise, is there a limit on how many cars a single host on turo can put on the site?

I'm not aware of a limit right now, but really, I think you might be getting to this point of this idea that somehow something that is like a rental car company would use Turo as a platform. And I think That's a really good point to raise because here under current existing law, an individual that puts a car on a turo platform has to pay three times insurance. They do not have the advantage of opting not to pay their vehicle license fee when they purchase their vehicle.

It is also almost incredibly difficult to get a sales tax exemption. So they're also paying sales tax on their vehicle when they purchase the car. They're buying their cars at a dealership, so they're paying a retail value on the car. Further, they don't have vicarious liability protections like a rental car company. So it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the business end to operate like a rental car company under a peer to peer car sharing platform.

Ms. Calderon.

Thank you. So I noticed that the Bill has recently been amended, and my question is, are these amendments the result of our work product between conversations between the opposition and the author?

So, yes, and I just want you to know I have met with the opposition no less than eight times. I personally was on the phone with General counsel for the opposition to help them draft language. Now, I'm a lawyer by trade, but That's not necessarily what legislators do, but That's the kind of accommodations I have made for purposes of the Bill and certainly willing to do more. I will say that this Bill does not seek to control the terms of any permit by any airport.

So if there are differences between a rental car and a ride sharing application, airports can certainly take that into account. It has been long held that on airport services, off airport services are very different. What this Bill seeks to do is mandate a permit because these are public facilities. Whatever those terms may be will have to be figured out by an airport.

We just want to make sure that publicly funded facilities that provide profits for companies pay their fair shares so that you and I, John Q. Taxpayer, have to pay less for those public facilities. Everybody should contribute. So That's the simplicity of the Bill. But to answer your question, entertained, many amendments will continue to do so, provided some as late as Friday afternoon at 04:00 we haven't heard back yet on them, but we are definitely continuing to work and will do so.

But we must ensure that airports get permits for those that seek to make a profit off these public facilities. That shall always remain in the Bill. But the terms and the differences and the nuances between a platform and a rental car company can always be remained and taken into account by an airport.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Would the opposition like to respond?

Thank you so much and thank you for the question. Assemblymember, and I have to apologize with all due respect, we have not received amendments directly from the author's office. I was shared amendments from another Member not on this Committee yesterday, which I think attempt to capture some of the amendments sought by the support by the Airport Council and I think a partial one amendment to one section.

And we appreciate the Assembly Member and the author's office willingness to work with us, and I hate that we are at this impasse right now and that there seems to be a breakdown in a communication, but That's where we're at. Even with the amendments that were shared by another office last night, Turo does remain opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

I think part of the problem is that Turo has many lobbyists representing them, so easily confirmable that there are emails communicating these amendments.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

And this Bill doesn't leave this Committee and goes to the governor's desk. So there's still time to work through it and I encourage that you will have those opportunities. It sounds like the author is certainly prepared to continue to do that. Is there anyone from the public that would like to add their comments to this on this Bill? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Ortega? The Bill is out, with Republicans not voting. Mathis and Sanchez voting Aye.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Holden, you'll be presenting SB 383 for Portantino?

I am. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, this Bill provides appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. The state entered into these settlements lawfully upon advice of counsel. The settlements are binding state obligations. This Bill appropriates from the General Fund 6.77 million to the Attorney General as follows. One time General Fund appropriations of 3,700,000 in the 2022 23 fiscal year to DOJ to pay the settlement arising from Wetlands Preservation foundation versus Department of Water Resources.

One time General Fund appropriation of 3,073,000 in the 202223 fiscal year to pay the judgment arising from the California DUI Lawyers Association versus Department of Motor Vehicles. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi, good morning, chair Members. I'm Amy Alley. I'm a deputy Attorney General and the Legislative Director for the Department of Justice. In the interest of time, I'll keep my talking points short. Thank you, chair, for helping with this Bill this year and your annual help with it, and for Senator Portantino's authorship of this important measure. With that, on behalf of the Attorney General, we respectfully ask for your support.

Michele Perrault Department of Finance. We have an approved support on the Bill and we concur with the costs that were indicated by Assembly Member Holden.

Thank you. Any Members of the public back to the Committee. Papan and Pellerin, and this is out on an A roll call. Thank you.

Okay, we will now move to the consent calendar.

AB 516, Ramos. AB 546, Villapudua. AB 551, Bennett. AB 857, Ortega. AB 1038, Reyes. AB 1046, Lowenthal. AB 1074, Alanis. AB 1097, Luz Rivas. AB 1140, Committee on Insurance. AB 1210, Kalra. AB 1239, Calderon. AB 1270, Dixon. AB 1285, Wicks. AB 1287, Alvarez. AB 1293, Irwin. AB 1309, Reyes. AB 1320, Hoover. AB 1329, Maienschein. AB 1417, Wood. AB 1447, Flora. AB 1659, Santiago. AB 1759, Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review. AB 1766, Committee on Labor and Employment. And ACR 38, Alvarez.

Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Second the consent calendar. We have a motion. A second.

Holden. Aye. Holden, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Wendy Carrillo. Wendy Carrillo, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Fong. Aye. Fong, aye. Hart. Aye. Lowenthal. Lowenthal, aye. Mathis. Mathis, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Robert Rivas. Robert Rivas, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Weber. Ortega. Ortega, aye.

15 to zero. The consent calendar is approved. We'll now take up the suspense file. Madam Clerk, please read the suspense calendar.

AB 5, Zbur. AB 33, Bains. AB 46, Ramos. AB 51, Bonta. AB 52, Grayson. AB 59, Gallagher. AB 84, Ward. AB 85, Weber. AB 99, Connolly. AB 241, Reyes. AB 262, Holden. AB 274, Bryan. AB 310, Arambula. AB 321, Wilson. AB 331, Bauer-Kahan. AB 366, Petrie-Norris. AB 460, Bauer-Kahan. AB 471, Kalra. AB 473, Aguiar-Curry. AB 481, Wendy Carrillo. AB 486, Kalra. AB 492, Pellerin.

AB 509, Vince Fong. AB 519, Shiavo. AB 522, Kalra. AB 537, Berman. AB 543, Gipson. AB 5551, Carrillo. AB 556, Gallagher. AB 582, Connolly. AB 596, Reyes. AB 620, Connolly. AB 625, Aguiar-Curry. AB 629, Wallis. AB 641, Vince Fong. AB 642, Ting. AB 643, Berman. AB 645, Friedman. AB 649, Wilson. AB 673, Bennett.

AB 679, Wicks. AB 710, Shiavo. AB 716, Boerner. AB 756, Papan. AB 814, Lowenthal. AB 821, Grayson. AB 824, Calderon. AB 841, Berman. AB 845, Alvarez. AB 870, Arambula. AB 877, Addis. AB 914, Friedman. AB 926, Papan. AB 935, Connolly. AB 963, Shiavo. AB 972, Maienschein. AB 979, Alvarez. AB 991, Alvarez. AB 1001, Haney. AB 1005, Alvarez. AB 1006, McKinnor. AB 1008, Bauer-Kahan. AB 1048, Wicks. AB 1060, Ortega. AB 1061, Boerner. AB 1066, Joe Patterson. AB 1072, Wicks. AB 1078, Jackson.

AB 1079, Jackson. AB 1082, Kalra. AB 1093, Jim Patterson. AB 1113, McCarty. AB 1122, Bains. AB 1128, Santiago. AB 1133, Shiavo. AB 1147, Addis. AB 1154, Wilson. AB 1157, Ortega. AB 1168, Bennett. AB 1172, Calderon. AB 1175, Quirk-Silva. AB 1180, Rodriguez. AB 1181, Zbur. AB 1188, Boerner. AB 1198, Grayson. AB 1203, Bains. AB 1207, Irwin. AB 1231, Santiago. AB 1257, Committee on Business and Professions. AB 1264, Committee on Business and Professions. AB 1282, Lowenthal. AB 1292, Flora. AB 1322, Friedman. AB 1337, Wicks. AB 1358, Muratsuchi. AB 1373, Garcia. AB 1386, Gabriel. AB 1415, Santiago. AB 1420, Berman. AB 1435, Lackey. AB 1448, Wallis. AB 1451, Jackson. AB 1463, Lowenthal. AB 1470, Quirk-Silva. AB 1478, Cervantes. AB 1482, Gabriel. AB 1490, Lee. AB 1498, Gipson. AB 1499, Bauer-Kahan. AB 1500, Irwin. AB 1504, McCarty. AB 1509, Quirk-Silva. AB 1512, Bryan. AB 1513, Calderon. AB 1518, Friedman. AB 1519, Bains. AB 1522, Cervantes. AB 1525, Bonta. AB 1544, Lackey. AB 1549, Wendy Carrillo. AB 1550, Bennett. AB 1568, Wood. AB 1576, Wallis. AB 1577, Low. AB 1580, Juan Carrilo. AB 1581, Kalra. AB 1584, Weber. AB 1604, Bonta. AB 1606, Gipson. AB 1623, Muratsuchi. AB 1626, McCarty. AB 1633, Ting. AB 1637, Irwin. AB 1644, Bonta. AB 1644-45, Zbur. AB 1667, Irwin. AB 1673, Pacheco. AB 1675, Alanis. AB 1710, Ta. AB 1711, Juan Carrillo. AB 1712, Irwin. AB 1738, Wendy Carrillo. AB 1755, Committee on Judiciary. AB 1765, Committee on Revenue and Taxation. And AB 1769, Committee on Governmental Organization.

Thank you. This is suspense calendar is deemed approved. We'll now turn to our general public comment on bills that were not heard today, presented. We would welcome those who would like to present their position, or their name and organization and position on the bill, and we'll receive that at this time. Welcome.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members, Speaker Designate. This is in regards to AB 509, Fong on student loan, the taxation of student loan tuition assistance. My clients the Society of Human Resource Management and their California Council CalSHRM, the proud cosponsors of that bill. Thank you

Mr. Chair and Members, Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of San Francisco's Mayor, London Breed, cosponsor of AB 645 and also in support of AB 645 by Assembly Member Friedman, we have the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of West Hollywood. And on AB 1738 by Assembly Member Carrillo that was sponsored by Mayor Karen Bass in strong support and with Mayor London Breed of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the County Health Executives Association in support of the Chair's AB 262, and also on behalf of CHEAC and the Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association in opposition to AB 1168, Bennett. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Glendale, one of the proud cosponsors of AB 645 in strong support of the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association. While CHA doesn't have a position on AB 1577 related to clinical placements for nursing students, we do have some concerns with the bill currently in print. However, we do appreciate the author and sponsors working closely with us on their proposal, and we look forward to continued collaboration. Thank you.

Good morning. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor and in strong support of AB 5, Zbur and AB 1645, Zbur.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer, and Lange on behalf of Kern County, speaking in opposition to AB 1705 by McKinnor, solid waste facilities. Thank you.

Good morning. John Shaban, California Nurses. Proud to sponsor and support AB 747, McCarty, AB 1001 and AB 1007. Thank you.

Chris Kahn, on behalf of Nightingale College, in strong support of AB 1292 by Assemblyman Flora. Thank you.

Good morning. Keryn Whitlow, representing Take a Stand Stanislaus in opposition of AB 659 unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dennis Cuevas-Romero on behalf of the California Health Plus Advocates, cosponsors of Assemblywoman Carrillo's AB 1549. Support. Thank you.

Good morning, I'm Stephanie Daigre here as a representative for California Nurses United in opposition of AB 659 unless sections 3 and 5 are pulled from the bill. Thank you. Never mind.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Andrea Ball on behalf of the Partnership for Children and Youth, sponsor of AB 1113 by Assembly Member McCarty, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? Seeing none, we have concluded our business for the day. This meeting is adjourned.