Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

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 live stream on the Assembly's website at Assembly.Ca.Gov/Todaysevents we encourage the public to monitor the Committee's websites for updates.

We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waive presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. Testimony on any such Bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and 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 substitute to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I'd like to establish a quorum. I believe one is present. Madam Secretary, is a quorum present? Yes.

Roll Call

We have a quorum. Look at this. Nice attendance. Good job, everyone. Okay, I'd like to dispense with the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, will you please read the consent calendar?

Consent Calander

And do we have a motion? Got lots of motions in seconds.

Roll Call

13 to 0. Great. That is that. We'll leave it open though for anyone of a couple folks that will probably add on. And with that, our first Bill presentation today is by Miss Sharon Quirk-Silva. You are presenting AB 2433.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. AB 2433 addresses the lengthy delays in the building permit process by introducing flexibility in inspection timelines and the conditional utilization of a private professional services. Over the past decade, many factors have contributed to prolonged processing times of building permits and inspections.

Affordable housing projects and disadvantaged communities which require efficient use of capital are particularly harmed by these added undue costs and delays, further hindering investment precisely when it is needed most. AB 2433 cuts through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable common sense deadlines for plan checking and inspections.

It is all about keeping projects moving forward, smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the process more efficient, we can both save money and support our communities and businesses, creating an opportunity to make tangible improvements in the lives of countless Californians.

Due to time constraints, recent agreed amendments with some of the opposition will be processed on the Assembly floor if the Bill Passes Committee today. With me today in support of AB 2433 and to answer any questions you may have with me is Skyler Wonnacott, Senior Director of Government Relationships with the California Business Properties Association. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and our members NAIOP California and Boma California, the sponsors of AB 2433. This Bill has minimal fiscal impact that should be absorbable and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to express support? Name organization if any, in position.

Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and support.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express opposition? Great. We have a motion, a second. Would you like to close Miss Quirk-Silva?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on an a roll call with Mister Patterson not voting. Thank you. Thank you Members. Miss Brenner, you are next and you are presenting AB 2230? No, 2234. Yeah. And I believe you're also presenting 2575 a suspense item. Yes. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. AB 2234 would authorize a four year opt in pilot project in the County of San Diego banning e-bikes, class 1 and 2, e-bikes for anyone under the age of 12.

Consistent with the data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, this Bill has no state costs because any cost of compliance to the local entity is voluntary. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Anyone wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Great. And anyone wish to express support in the room, please name organization position.

Good morning, Sharon Gonzalez. On behalf of the City of Carlsbad, sponsor of the Bill and support. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. That is enjoys a do passs recommendation. It's out on an A roll call with Mister Ta not voting. And I believe you are now presenting AB 2575.

Yes, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present on AB 2575. This Bill would establish the Department of Broadband and Digital Equity and. Sorry, the Department of Broadband and Digital Equity and the Broadband and Digital Equity Commission.

The department would serve as the centralized state Department for broadband and digital equity activities within the state, which currently are split between the California Public Utilities Commission, the CPUC, and the California Department of Technology, CDT to oversee this agency.

The Bill also establishes an 11-member Broadband and Digital Equity Commission that would include Members with backgrounds in broadband, digital equity, labor, the industry and tribes. What we've seen with the status quo is that it's not working in broadband. And that is why I felt called to present this Bill.

Even though it's going to suspense. From what I've observed as chairs, communication and conveyance is that the current structure that silos out our programs has three persistent challenges, difficult public participation, confusing decision-making procedures and poor interagency coordination. The analysis appropriately estimates the cost to implement this Bill would be significant.

But I want to remind this Committee of what there's also a cost to the status quo. For example, the CPUC has been nearly two years delayed in awarding the federal funds for broadband grants. Even as we get closer to federal deadlines and we risk forfeiting those federal dollars, we've had.

Sorry, we've had oversight hearings, but we don't have any. We don't see any accountability. In fact, the commissioners skipped the February budget sub seven oversight hearing that I participated in.

Nonetheless, in this year's proposed budget, the Administration also requests permanent funding for 46 positions at the CPUC and permanent funding for 36th position at CDT, totaling millions of dollars on an ongoing basis.

The CPUC is also requesting nearly $300,000 annually to fund more staff positions for their interviewer compensation program, which essentially pays organizations to navigate the CPUC's very complicated process.

Other state agencies like CDT, the energy Commissioner CARB don't have these types of programs because the public is allowed to simply show up and express their opinion, whereas the CPUC you must be a privileged party to officially participate, which requires organizations to incur significant legal costs.

This Bill is not about stopping the ongoing work of our agencies, but rather about trying to find efficiencies to lead to better outcomes and achieve the goal of broadband for all. Yet those challenges will have. Those changes will have costs, but we have to keep in mind the status quo is also costing us money too.

So thank you for your time and I welcome any questions?

Thank you Miss Boerner. Any additional folks wish to express support? Anyone wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Okay, it's a candidate for the suspense file. Thank you so much. Next we have Mister Kalra presenting AB 2441.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. AB 2441 will change how teachers and administrators can address students behaviors by giving them the flexibility to decide whether to report a student or not to law enforcement for certain incidents.

This Bill does not change existing law around law enforcement involvement for student fights or when a student is attacked, assaulted, threatened, or harmed. AB 2441 simply makes it optional rather than mandatory for students to be referred to law enforcement when they willfully disturb a public school meeting or when a teacher or staff is assaulted or threatened.

Teachers and staff still retain the right to call law enforcement if they believe that is the right response to the particular incident, but they will not be required to do so. And no one can be dissuaded from calling law enforcement, either directly or indirectly.

We need to trust and empower our teachers and administrators to make the decisions they believe are the best, that are best for their students success and the safety of the classroom environment. And they do know their students the best. And I want to show appreciation to education Committee Chair Muratsuchi.

We spent well over a year working on amendments to get this Bill to where it is, where where we feel comfortable that it only helps to enhance school safety while ensuring teachers and administrators can make the right choice for the students.

AB 2441 has minor costs to school districts to provide support to principals and employees on the updated requirements on reporting students to law enforcement. Here to testify and support is Sally Ching, Policy Director with the alliance for Boys and Men of Color.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Sally Ching.

I'm the policy Director with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, and we are proud co sponsors of AB 2441 the Bill gives educators the discretion to choose what kind of interventions and supports they think will serve the student best, while retaining their ability to involve law enforcement if needed.

The Bill has minimal costs to school districts because it doesn't require schools to implement any specific alternative interventions. Even minimal contact with law enforcement comes at an enormous cost to students has been shown to cause long term harm, such as decreasing the likelihood of graduation and increasing the likelihood of ending up in jail or prison.

Students of color, black students, Latinx students, and students with disabilities are disproportionately referred to law enforcement, cited and arrested. For instance, in 2018, black students made up 6% of all students in California, but comprised 15% of all arrests.

Educators and administrators, such as the California Federation of Teachers and the California Association of School Administrators, support the Bill because they have the experience on the grounds to understand the right approach for a particular student and a particular situation.

We trust educators to trust to teach our students, and we should trust them to make the right call on how to support them. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks there wish to express support? Any opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Great. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on AB roll call with Mister Calderon and Mister Villapudua. Not voting. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have Mister Wood.

Up next, you are presenting AB 2744.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair and Members, I'd like to start by thanking you and the Committee staff for your work on this Bill. This is AB 2749. I thought I heard a different number.

You are correct. Sorry. 2749.

Okay, thank you. In recent years, California has made enormous strides towards both universal health coverage and labor relations. In 2022, I authored AB 2530 which required Covered California to administer a program for workers who lose health insurance coverage during a labor dispute.

During the first year of implementation of AB 2530 it was discovered that further clarification was needed in the language. This proposal clarifies eligibility for the program to reach the intended target of workers and ensures the benefits of this important program are administered effectively to workers who need them covered.

California has assessed the cost of the Bill to be minor and absorbable. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support. Any opposition, we will bring it back to Committee. We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

Great. Mister Wood that enjoys a do pass recommendation, it's out with Republicans not voting and Miss Dixon voting no.

Thank you.

Thank you. And next we have. We have Miss Carillo, who is presenting AB 3177.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB 3177, which establishes guidelines on what is called spot widening, a practice in which housing developers cede a portion of their land for a roadway widening without compensation.

Spot winding significantly increases housing costs, adding somewhere between $10,000 to $50,000 per housing unit, amounting to hundreds of thousands per project. Moreover, these requirements reduce the amount of land available for housing and delay the construction of much needed housing.

Additionally, AB 3177 replaces the reference to transit stations with transit priority areas within the mitigation Fee act, providing reduced mitigation fees for housing near bus stops and planned transit stop stops that are not covered under the definition of transit station.

As noted in the Committee analysis, local agencies have the authority to charge various fees to offset any increased costs associated with the bill's provisions. These costs are not reimbursed by the state, meaning there is no cost pressure to the General Fund.

This Bill is sponsored by streets for all and supported by a coalition of housing, environmental and street safety organizations, and has no opposition and has received bipartisan support. To testify in support is Brooke Pritchard, the legislative advocate for California YIMBY.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY, proud supporter. California's current practice on road widening dedications typically achieves further road congestion and little housing being built. AB 3177 provides reasonable guidelines on the practice of specifically spot widening. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. A motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request for a vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out on AB roll call. Mister Grayson, would you like to present for Mister Ward? Mr. Grayson I believe you are presenting 3093, AB 3093.

Miss Irwin, you can go next. And Mister Grayson, I believe you're presenting 3093. AB 3093.

That is correct. AB 3093 comes directly from HCD's recent report on recommended RHNA reforms. This Bill introduces two income categories to the RHNA process for the next housing element cycle. Acutely Low Income and Extremely Low Income. These categories would capture the housing needs of Californians earning up to 15% and 30% of the AMI respectively.

These are our constituents who are most at risk or already experiencing homelessness. HCD estimates minor and observable costs associated with this Bill. Any local cost resulting from this Bill would not be reimbursable by the state. And we have here with us today our very own from HCD.

Thank you so much. I'm Megan Kirkeby from HCD and available if there are any questions about this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses like to express support? Anyone like to express opposition?

Okay, good morning Chair and Members. Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, we have a concerns position at this time. I think that we do have some concerns about the potential cost to local governments.

AB 3093 does include new requirements for cities in their planning processes without additional funding to do those plans or to implement those strategies, or to spur the development of the housing that we're all seeking to develop.

I think we're also concerned about how AB 3093 is coming on the heels of the May revise, which did include deep cuts to affordable housing programs and no further commitment to Fund critical homelessness programs. I think cities are also concerned that some of the provisions or the creation of these categories is duplicative of existing planning efforts.

Cities are already planning for very low income categories which range from zero to 50% of the AMI, and that does include extremely low income households in our communities. We look forward to working through those concerns. Our letter details some things that we're hoping to work through over the next couple of weeks.

We've had really positive conversations with the staff and look forward to working together to address our concerns about addressing homelessness and boosting the supply of affordable housing in our communities.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a B roll call with Mister Patterson voting aye and Mister Ta not voting. Thank you. Next, we have Miss Irwin who I believe is presenting AB 2697.

Can you hear me? Yes. This is a Bill related to the electric vehicle charging experience. According to the CEC, 41% of our publicly funded EV chargers are installed with state grants or taxpayer money.

This Bill requires that state funded chargers that we've installed prior to 2024 be subject to CEC reliability standards, which are being finalized this summer and subject to roaming agreements so that different companies chargers can talk to one another and that drivers will have easy access to all. California has spent nearly $1.7 billion on EV charging infrastructure.

Without accountability, these chargers are at risk of being stranded assets. The CEC anticipates minor implementation costs for this Bill, and thank you. And I respectfully ask for, well, aye vote when the time comes.

Great. Anyone wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? Anyone wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. The motion. Second. Would you like to close?

Thank you for listening to my presentation.

You're welcome, Miss Irwin. This enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on an a roll call. Thank you. Thank you. We were riveted by your presentation, Miss Irwin, as always. Miss Petrie Norris, you are up next. You are presenting AB 2672.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2672, a Bill to allow project home key sites to receive a discount on their utility bills. Currently, California's energy Bill discount program care, applies to individual customers and to a customer meter.

However, these home key sites are often in converted hotels or motels that are master metered properties. So, as such, the care discount does not currently apply, even though this population would otherwise receive this discount and be eligible.

So AB 2672 simply clarifies that in these specific circumstances, this population will continue to be eligible for the built discount. I'm pleased to be joined by Israel Salas from San Diego Gas and Electric to briefly testify in support.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Israel Salas with San Diego.

You could turn the mic on. Thanks.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Israel Salas with San Diego Gas and Electric in support of the Bill and here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express support in the room? Any witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Oh, Miss Carrillo, thank you.

Madam Chair, can you see me? Assembly Member, thank you so much for this Bill.

I think this is an example of how sometimes government moves fast, and then we look back and see here are opportunities that we've missed, and clearly project home key, project room key, and the development of hotels, motels into conversion spaces for people to live in is a was. We missed it.

And I'm glad that there's an opportunity to change that and really alleviate individuals that are experiencing being unhoused and their ability to restart their lives and really get a step up. So I'd love to be a co author, if possible, on your policy. And we haven't moved it. Happy to move the Bill.

Thank you. This enjoys a do pass recommendations out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon not voting. We have miss. Oh, sorry. Miss Dixon voting no.

Well, thank you for those comments, for your support, and respectfully ask for your aye vote great.

Great. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close Miss Petrie Norris.

I apologize. And now we have Miss Wilson, you're up. And you are presenting AB 3138.

Madam Chair Members, good morning. I'm pleased to present AB 3138, which would modify the existing alternative digital license plate program to allow drivers to have the option to choose whether they'd like the digital license plate to include banner messages and vehicle location technology, more commonly known as GPS.

This Bill builds upon a successful pilot program launched over a decade ago in 2013. Under current law, when purchasing a vehicle, consumers are typically given a metal plate. However, if a consumer wants to choose to purchase a digital license plate that is approved by DMV, then currently have that option.

As noted in the analysis, DMV has already conducted extensive rulemaking related to alternative devices to conventional license plates, stickers, tabs and registration cards, and thus will not require additional resources to implement the provisions of this Bill should it become law. These digital license plates typically cost around $500 and require a subscription.

The Bill also puts in place privacy standards for the GPS plate that far exceed protection in current law for other comparable GPS equipped devices. AB 3138 requires the following protections for all GPS enabled plates sold in California.

First, the GPS shall be capable of being permanently disabled by means of a non reversible method that ceases all functionality and tracking information capabilities. The GPS shall be capable of being manually disabled and enabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle.

The method of manually disabling and enabling the GPS shall be prominently located and easy to disable and enable without requiring access to a remote online application. The method of manually disabling and enabling the GPS shall not require a password or any login information.

And finally, once the vehicle location technology is manually disabled from inside the car, the only method of re-enabling the technology shall be manual from inside the car. The registered owner of the license plate, the manufacturer, the DMV, or any other entity shall not have the capability to re-engage the GPS through any remote means.

These protections far exceed protections in statute for other GPS enabled devices such as the cars themselves, apps used inside the cars, our cell phones and countless other legal products able to consumers at much cheaper prices.

While GPS, like other technologies, has the ability to be abused by bad actors, the appropriate policy response is to put guardrails and protections in place with me today to present in support, I have Neville Boston, the co founder of Reviver.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Neville Boston. I'm the Founder and Chief Strategy Officer for Reviver. AB 3138 builds upon already voted on and approved legislation AB 984 a couple years ago, and then the original Bill, which was SB 806.

This Bill clarifies the digital plate must comply with provisions to ensure privacy of consumer is not compromised, while continuing to strengthen the benefits that it provides to businesses. The previous sponsored legislation, AB 984, formalized the pilot program. This simply builds upon the already existing program by adding additional privacy guardrails.

The DMV has already conducted extensive rulemaking related to the alternative registration device program and Reviver, which Reviver has been intimately involved in. The rules are still in the process of being finalized, and we understand that the legislation won't impose additional costs on the program.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support?

Good morning, Chair Members, Tatum Ackler with Samson Advisors on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. We have a motion. Second. Would you close Miss Wilson?

Thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on AB roll call with Miss Dixon and Mister Patterson voting aye.

Thank you.

Miss Schiavo, you are up next. You are presenting AB 1820.

Chair Members, I am thrilled to be here to present AB 1820, which is a simple, good government transparency measure that allows housing developers to know development fees prior to committing shovels in the ground.

Knowledge of these fees is critical because many of these fees add up to 20% of the cost of a home, which is the tipping point for many people from having access to an affordable home. AB 1820 provides guardrails, especially for affordable home developers, to have the predictability in the cost of building affordable housing that we need.

And the Committee analysis indicates that there will be no General Fund pressure here to testify and support, I have our co sponsor, Brooke Pritchard from California YIMBY.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY, proud co-sponsor of the Bill. As you all know, most housing projects operate on narrow margins. So by requiring local jurisdictions to provide an itemized list of fee estimates, AB 1820 provides the certainty needed to provide much needed housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support, please name, organization and position.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors and Support. Thank you.

Karen Stout, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, as well as spur and strong support.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express opposition, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendations out on an a roll call. And Mister Bryan, would you like to present AB 3217?

Morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 3217 on behalf of myself. It's a straightforward Bill that puts two different requirements in to ensure that counties are meeting family placement expectations. The first, it will require counties that fall below the statewide average to consult with the directors of the top three counties on best practices.

Second, it will require the same counties to agendize the topic at a county Board of Supervisors hearing. This will provide accountability and transparency into the efforts county welfare agencies are making to improve their family placement rates.

This Bill will cost less than $25,000 annually to the state, but will ensure that the issue of family placement is continually prioritized in our state's child welfare system. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express support? Any opposition, bring it back to Committee. Lots of motions and seconds. Would you like to close?

It is foster youth awareness month and so this kind of work is especially timely and respectfully asked for aye vote.

Thank you very much for all the work you do in this space. Mister Bryan that enjoys the do pass recommendations out on an a roll call. Okay, we'd like to add folks onto the consent calendar who weren't here.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the consent calendar is on its way. It's at 15. Yeah, that's out 15-0. Okay, let's see. Let's go to the suspense calendar. I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

Following bills are AB 1779, 1777 Ting, 1825 Muratsuchi, 1826 Holden, 1860 Bauer-Kahan, 1865 Jim Patterson, 1893 Wicks, 1907 Pellerin, 1925 Rendon, 1932 Ward, 1961 Wicks, 1973 Lackey, 2022 Addis, 2052 Jones-Sawyer, 2061 Wilson, 2066 Reyes, 2075 Alvarez, 2086 Shiavo, 2097 Berman, 2113 Garcia, 2128 Ta, 2155 Ting, 2180 Weber. 2200 Kalra, 2203 McCarty.

2206 Addis, 2221 Carrillo, 2223 Aguiar-Curry, 2233 Shiavo, 2239 Bonta, 2247 Wallace, 2254 Blanca Rubio, 2256 Friedman, 2271 Ortega, 2290 Friedman, 2312 Wallace, 2320 Irwin, 2353 Ward, 2355 Wendy Carrillo, 2365 Haney, 2368 Petrie-Norris, 2369 Jim Patterson, 2383 Wendy Carrillo, 2385 Alanis, 2390 Arambula. 2400 Luz Rivas, 2427 McCarty, 2452 Quirk-Silva, 2466 Wendy Carrillo, 2473 Committee on Education, 2476 Bonta, 2479 Haney, 2485 Juan Carrillo, 2489 Ward, 2498 Zbur, 2510 Arambula, 2524 Ward, 2528 Arambula, 2539 Connolly, 2549 Gallagher, 2552 Friedman, 2555 Quirk-Silvar, 2558 Hart, 2559 Petrie-Norris, 2564 Boerner, 2575 Boerner, 2583 Berman. 2614 Ramos, 2627 Pellerin, 2642 Berman, 2643 Wood, 2657 Arambula, 2660 Committee on Emergency Management, 2666 Boerner, 2667 Santiago, 2670 Shiavo, 2674 Shiavo, 2683 Boerner, 2696 Rendon, 2699 Wendy Carrillo, 2701 Villapudua, 2702 Chen, 2704 Zbur, 2711 Ramos, 2726 Flora, 2727 Committee on Emergency Management, 2728 Gabriel, 2732 Papan, 2742 Sanchez. 2756 Boerner, 2762 Friedman, 2774 Grayson, 2775 Gibson, 2783 Alvarez, 2786 Bonta, 2789 Wallace, 2795 Arambula, 2808 Wicks, 2813 Aguiar-Curry, 2828 Bains, 2830 Robert Rivas, 2839 Pellerin, 2845 Robert Rivas, 2893 Ward, 2906 Bryan, 2927 McCarty, 2942 Villapudua, 2945 Alvarez, 2949 Rendon, 2956 Boerner, 2977 Jackson. 2986 Wendy Carillo, 2999 Shiavo, 3023 Papan, 3055 Bonta, 3061 Haney, 3079 Ting, 3107 Connolly, 3131 McCarty, 3141 Gibson, 3145 Bryan, 3150 Quirk-Silva, 3156 Joe Patterson, 3160 Gabriel, 3161 Bonta, 3218 Wood, 3256 Irwin, 3263 Calderon, 3275 Soria, 3291 Committee on Human Services and ACA 10 Haney.

Thank you. The suspense calendar is deemed approved. Okay, public comment. I'd like to open up the hearing to comments by Members of the public on any bills not presented to the Committee today. Please be sure to limit your comments to your name, organization, if any, and your position on the Bill.

Anyone like to express their support or opposition, please feel free to step up to the mic.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support of AB 2200. Thank you.

Reverend Casey Kloehn Dunsworth on behalf of Lutheran Social Services of Northern California and Lutheran Social Services of Southern California. Strong support for AB 2728.

Kelly Alexander, student at California Lutheran University, on behalf of Lutheran Office of Public Policy strong support for AB 2728.

Good morning. Chair and Members Stanicia Boatner, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Rural County Representatives of California, Urban Counties of California, the County Health Executive Association of California, the League of California Cities, and the California Special District Association, in opposition to AB 2489. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in opposition to AB 1932. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ted Whitney with the Hemp Beverage Alliance. We're in strong opposition to AB 2223. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and chair Members. Jonathan Black with Cheech and Chong's Global Holdings. We're in strong opposition of AB 2223. Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Sanchez, California Advocacy on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund in support of AB 1826, on behalf of Leukemia & Lymphoma Society in support of AB 1860 and AB 2466 and on behalf of the ILWU in support of AB 2235. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California in support of Assembly Bill 2233 Shiavo. Thank you.

Karen Stout, on behalf of Power California Action in support of ACA 10.

Talia D'Amato, on behalf of California Normal in support of AB 2223 and AB 2555.

Good morning. Excuse me, my name is Michael Ramirez and I am representing Delta Beverage, which is the largest cannabis manufacturer in the state and most likely in the country. And we are opposing 2223.

I have one more. Daniel Sanchez, California Advocacy on behalf of California Emerging Technology Fund in support of AB 2239. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That concludes today's hearing. We are adjourned.