Senate Floor

The Senate will come to order. Will the secretary please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Members, a quorum is present. Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Floor session. Today. I see we have a number of twins in the House. We want to acknowledge and recognize them. I'd like to ask Members and guests beyond the rail and in the gallery to please rise.

We will be led in prayer this morning by our chaplain, Sister Michelle, after which, please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Sister Michelle.

And also on this world day, for cultural diversity, we pray holy mystery. You the one from whom, on different paths, all of us have come. You the one to whom on different paths, all of us are going make strong in our hearts what unites us. Build bridges across what divides us united. Make us rejoice in our diversity.

Make us one in our witness to your peace, a rainbow to your glory. Amen.

Please join me in the pledge to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag. We will begin with privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports of Committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted.

Members, we're going to move next to motions, resolutions and notices. Seeing no microphones up, we will. Excuse me, Senator Cortese.

Mister President, is this the place to move items to the inactive file? Yes, sir. All right, I would. Thank you very much. I would like to move summary Member tings AB 347 from the. From the inactive file. Remove AB 347 from the inactive file today.

Thank you. The desk will note any further motions, resolutions or notices. Members. All right, we'll move on to the consideration. The daily file. I'd like to ask the secretary begin with second reading. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 93610504128021414134081494. Senate concurrent reservation.

Second reading file will be deemed read. Thank you. We're going to move next to unfinished business. We're going to take an item up in a few minutes and unfinished. Right. I'm just noting that we're going to come back to unfinished business in a moment. And we're going to move now to Senate third reading.

Members, if you want to know the schedule of activities this morning, I want to give you a heads up so you can be aware that we're going to begin with Senate third reading. We have five bills up. They are file item. If you want to note this, 242-8293 and 34.

Following that, we will move back to unfinished business to take up file item 21 to concur an Assembly amendment. So that's the docket for this morning.

And Members, because we do have a Member off the floor this morning, we will be going through the roll one time and then putting matters on call, so be aware of that for this morning. Okay, we'll go through the roll one time. All right, so we're going to begin with file item 24.

This is Senate Bill 1001 by Senator Skinner. She's prepared. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 1001 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister President, Members, pleased to present SB 1000, 1001. Okay, yes. Sorry, I thought I was going with the other one first. All right, please present SB 1001, which establishes a process for a person who has received a death penalty sentence, but who has a developmental or intellectual disability.

I'll refer from this point on as intellectual disability. The ability to provide expert evidence that their developmental disability manifested prior to the age of 25.

Now, under our current law, if you have a diagnosis that you had such a disability before the age of 25 and that diagnosis is present when you face a conviction, you are ineligible for a death sentence. And that is consistent with the 8th amendment.

But we have circumstances where people with these intellectual disabilities, for any number of reasons, did not receive that diagnosis. You could imagine that person didn't have access to healthcare. They weren't at schools that did such testing. There's any number of reasons why they may not have had that diagnosis before the age of 25.

Now, this Bill does not change our current statute in that the presence of the intellectual disability or the developmental disability must have been present in the developmental period. So it must have been present before the age of 25. My Bill does not in any way touch or thwart that. That is still the law.

But what it does do is allow, if a person can provide the credible evidence with experts who do such testing, medical and other experts, then they would avoid the death penalty. They would still have life without parole, but they would not be able to be executed. Now, you may wonder, why am I bringing this Bill?

Now, we have a moratorium on executions, but the fact is, the death penalty is still law in California, and executions could begin again. And what this does is helps us ensure that California is consistent with the 8th amendment and protects against the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Members, any discussion on this Bill? Any discussion? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman. Glazer, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove. Hurtado. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire, aye. Menjivar, aye. Min. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth. Rubio, aye.

Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, Aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, no.

Members, I've been informed that we do have a full house now, so we're gonna go through the roll one more time. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Allen. Eggman, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado. Min. Ochoa Bogh, no. Roth.

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Allen. Hurtado. Min. Roth.

On a vote of twenty eight to eight, the measure carries. Members, we're going to move next to file item 28. This is Senate Bill 1272 by Senator Laird. He's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1272 by Senator Laird. An act relating to consumer protection.

Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mister President. Consumers have had the option to ask stores to redeem the remaining balance of a gift card below $10 for the last 16 years. There's been significant inflation since then, and the buying power has dropped.

This Bill would raise the redeemable dollar amount to dollar 25, with an annual adjustment for inflation rounded to the nearest whole dollar. According to the National Retail Federation, there is the most popular gift of the holiday season. CNN reports that there's $21 billion sitting in unused gift cards.

This will update it for the first time in the 16 years. There have been a few arguments against this. One is that it would require stores to keep extra cash on hand. Cash is not the requirement for redeeming, and that is not used by everyone. Now, there have been concerns about retail theft, we have asked for data.

We have received none. If we receive any, we will look at this. And there is also concern about a federal limit. But Massachusetts has a scheme that has a limit that's higher than the one in this Bill. So it's time to update this for the consumers. I think it's fair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, any discussion or debate on this measure? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire, aye. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla, aye.

Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio, aye. Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Wilk.

On a vote of 30 to six, the measure carries. Members, we're going to move next to file item 29. This is Senate Bill 1300 by Senator Cortese. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1300 by Senator Cortese. An act relating to health facilities.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours. Members, please give Senator Cortese your attention.

Thank you, Mister President and colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 1300. SB 1300 will help communities prepare for the closures of psychiatric units and maternity wards and hospitals. This Bill requires the health facility to provide 120 day public notice of the elimination of its inpatient psychiatric or maternity ward unit.

It also requires a health facility to prepare a report that analyzes the impact of the closure on the surrounding community's health system. Finally, the Bill increases public transparency by strongly encouraging each County Board of Supervisors to post a report online and hold a public hearing to provide the community with an overview of the impact report.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, any discussion or debate on this issue? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Ashby, aye. Atkins. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman. Glazer. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado, aye. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire, aye. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio. Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, no.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, no. Archuleta, aye. Atkins, aye. Eggman. Glazer. Ochoa Bogh. Rubio, aye. Dodd I had a no.

On a vote of 27 to nine, the measure carries. We're going to move next to file item number 30. This is SB 1401. By Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1401 by Senator Blakespear and Aquilina Childcare. Senator Blakespear, the floor is yours.

Thank you. President and colleagues, I rise to present SB 1401, which waives state licensure requirements for family child care providers who exclusively care for children of military personnel if they are already certified by the US Department of Defense.

This Bill is sponsored by the US Department of Defense and addresses a 50% shortage of in home child care providers for military families by creating new military childcare spots. SB 1401 will also help alleviate long child care waitlists for all Californians as fewer military families will need to use civilian options.

This Bill has no registered opposition and very much supports our military families. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Members, any discussion on this measure? Any discussion? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarodo- Gil, Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballero, Aye. Cortese, Aye. Dahle, Aye. Dodd, Aye. Durazo, Aye. Eggman. Glazer, Aye. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove, Aye. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, Aye. Laird, Aye. limon, Aye. McGuire, Menjavar, Aye. Min, Aye. Newman, Aye. Nguyen, Aye. Niello, Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Aye. Padilla, Aye. Portantino, Aye. Roth, Aye. Rubio, Aye. Seyarto, Aye. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Stern, Aye. Umberg, Aye. Wahab, Aye. Wiener, Aye. Wilk. Aye.

Please call the absent Members. Allen, Eggman, Aye. McGuire. On a vote of 38 to zero, the measure carries. We're gonna move next to file item 34. This is Senate Bill 924 by Senator Bradford. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 924 by Senator Bradford. An act relating to tenancy.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mister President. 924 simply removes the sunset date of July 1, 2025 from a measure I passed in 2020, SB 1157, that requires landlords of subsidized assistance developments to offer the option to renters to have their credit report reported and effectively make this permanent.

Our rent reporting has helped individuals establish credit and helps individuals with non prime credit improve their credit scores as a straightforward measure. And I simply ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this measure? Any further discussion or debate? Okay, Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker., aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove. Hurtado, aye. Jones. Laird, aye. Limon. McGuire. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, no. Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio aye.

Seyarto. Skinner. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Dahle. Grove, aye. Jones, aye. Limon, aye. Mcguire. Nguyen. Seyarto, no.

On a vote of 33 to three, the measure carries. Members, we're going to move back to unfinished business. We have one item to take up. This is file item 21 again on unfinished business. This is SB 233 by Senator Skinner.

Secretary, please read Senator Bill 233 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to hailing arts and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, pleased to present SB 233, which will temporarily allow licensed medical professionals, specifically Arizona doctors, to be able to get a temporary medical license in California in order to practice in California to provide abortion care to their Arizona patients who travel to California. These provisions sunset on November 30, 2024.

Arizonans, beginning on June 6, face a total abortion ban based on an 1864 law. That ban triggers two to five year prison sentences for doctors who provide care and other sentencing for any woman who receives such care. Now, while I'm sure you've read the Arizona Legislature has now rescinded the 1864 law.

And I guess you're wondering, why do we need this law today? Because, like California, you know when we pass a law, even when the Governor signs it, it doesn't come into effect until. Until a certain period of time after our session. In most cases in our session, it would start in January 1 of the following year.

In Arizona, bills take effect 90 days after the end of their session. Their session is not scheduled to end until the end of July. Thus, Arizonans will not have such protection until at least the end of October or November. This is why SB 233 is still needed.

And under 233, the Arizona Doctor must hold and verify that they have a medical license in good standing from Arizona and must have performed at least one abortion under their Arizona license within the last two years. This Bill also provides protection, privacy protection, for those physicians and surgeons. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. That's an aye vote on Assembly amendments to be concurred in. Right, Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mister President. Everything that my colleague from Berkeley just said is true, but she left something out. And that is that the Governor of Arizona, through Executive order, is prohibiting local district attorneys from prosecuting under the civil war era law, and only the Attorney General can.

And the Attorney General has said that their office will decline to enforce that civil war era law. So the relevant period of this enablement is about four weeks, but in Arizona, it's not going to be needed.

Thank you, Senator Niello, Senator Wahab, thank you.

I rise in support of SB 233. I will say that this is life saving care for many women. We cannot overstate this enough. More specifically, I want to highlight the fact that as much as possible, as much as we talk about women's rights, the decision over one's body is still in question here in the United States.

Maternal mortality rate in the United States is so much worse than nearly any other developed country. In 2022, there were 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. These rates are far worse when we shift our lens to women of color.

Specifically, California is the state where we try to provide for every single community, including our neighbors, who are struggling. It was also the Arizona attorney general's call to action that prompted this effort from a neighboring state, like the State of California. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Skinner, you may close.

Thank you. In response to my colleague from Fair Oaks, and I hope I have the correct jurisdiction, I think, as he well knows and all of us know, and I know that governors would like their Executive orders to have the force of statute. They unfortunately do not.

And while in most cases, entities like prosecutors or others will follow an Executive order, the Executive order does not have the force of law.

And so one could imagine there could be circumstances where there would be prosecutors in Arizona who do not agree with the Governor, as you had a court in Arizona who allowed the upholding of a, as you mentioned, a civil war era law, a law which I will note was passed when women could not vote, when women could not own property, when it was legal for husbands to beat women, and a variety of other things I could list.

But I won't go further. So this, our law is still needed. I hope that the cases the. That there is no prosecutor who chooses to defy the Governor of Arizona's Executive order.

But at least we will be acting in such a way that Arizona doctors will be able to determine how best to meet their medical obligations to their patients, and Arizona women who require this essential health care would be able to obtain it. And with that, I ask for your I vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Second Call]

On a vote of 30 to eight on the urgency, 30 to eight on the measure. The Assembly amendments are concurred in.

Members, we have some of our colleagues off the floor. So for the next couple bills, we're going to be doing the roll call just once and then putting it on call until our Members come back. Next on the file item list, we have file item number 35. Senator Laird, are you prepared? Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1280 by Senator Laird, an act relating to waste management.

Senator Laird?

Thank you very much, Madam President. And at the beginning, I respectfully request permission to use a prop during this presentation.

Without objection.

Okay, I heard Mike object, so I'm going to move ahead. Senate Bill 1280 simply transitions California to more sustainable outdoor recreation by requiring small propane cylinders sold in the state to be reusable or refillable starting on January 1st 2028. Many of you may think this Bill looks familiar. This Bill in this form has passed this house twice before.

And the problem is, the problem is this: right now, cities, counties, parks, beaches, everybody has to dispose of these themselves. This is a picture of Yosemite National Park, where they have collected these and put them in trucks and carted off. Cost them $75,000 a year to do this. The cities and counties across the state have to do the same thing.

There's a reason that the League of Cities, the Association of Counties, rural counties all support this Bill. Because while it costs $5 to $10 to buy these on the marketplace, the cost varies from $15 to $30 or higher to dispose of them or take them away.

Many times we have here decided that the market is the best place to deal with these, and that's what this does. When I was in the Assembly, the latest version of more efficient toilets failed when it was going to be put in the building code.

But when it gave the market a few years to phase it in, it passed, and that worked for businesses and that worked for the environment. That's what this does. We are in 2024, and this Bill will not take effect until 2028.

The opponents say a number of things - that somehow you'll have to cart many canisters into the parks. When it's refillable and you have one, it is really one. It is not multiple ones. Opponents say this is a ban. This is not a ban.

This establishes a requirement for refillable and allows a number of years for the market to catch up and make it work. It is really, right now, a burden on taxpayers across the state and those of us that have beaches or state parks.

And I rival Senator Mcguire in having as many state parks as, as any Senator on this floor. You just go and you see them in trash cans, and if there's propane left in them, that's hazardous. And so, the real issue here is to have some extended producer responsibility by having a recyclable propane cylinder.

It has passed this house twice. It is supported widely. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Senator Blakespear, you're recognized.

Yes, thank you. Colleagues, I also rise in strong support of SB 1280. It is estimated that in California alone, there are 4 million of those single canister, one pound propane cylinders that are sold. And as the author just said, the cost is borne by taxpayers, but it's also borne by the environment.

If you backpack, you see piles of these cylinders out in the backcountry because they are heavy and they're not refillable, and people leave them in nature. So, this is a form of preventable waste. And I strongly urge your "Aye" vote.

Any further discussion or debate? Senator Laird, you may close.

Thank you. I really appreciate the comments, and I just remind you, this picture is of the status quo. If we don't have any solution, this continues across our parks and beaches, in cities and counties, at the expense of our taxpayers. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil.

Aye.

Aye. Archuleta. Ashby.

Aye.

Aye. Atkins.

Aye.

Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear.

Aye.

Aye. Bradford.

Aye.

Aye. Caballero.

Aye.

Aye. Cortese.

Aye.

Aye. Dahle. Dodd. Durazo.

Aye.

Aye. Eggman.

Aye.

Aye. Glazer. Gonzalez.

Aye.

Aye. Grove.

No.

No. Hurtado.

Aye.

Aye. Jones

No.

No. Laird.

Aye.

Aye. McGuire. Menjivar. Min.

Aye. Limón.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Min. Excuse me, Newman.

Aye.

Aye. Nguyen.

No.

No. Niello.

Aye.

Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla.

Aye.

Aye. Pontantino. Roth.

Aye.

Aye. Rubio. Seyarto.

No.

No. Skinner

Aye.

Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Aye.

Aye. Stern.

Aye.

Aye. Umberg. Wahab.

Aye.

Aye. Wiener.

Aye.

Aye. Wilk.

Aye.

Aye.

Member moves to call. Next on the list is file item 38. Senator Caballero, are you prepared? The Senator is prepared. Secretary, please call. Please read.

Senate Bill 1140 by Senator Caballero, an Act relating to local government.

Senator Caballero? Good morning, Madam President, and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1140, which will reform enhanced infrastructure, financing districts, eifDs, and climate resilient districts, or crds, to streamline and create efficiencies in the formation process and expand the types of projects these tools can finance.

SB 1140 will reduce the mandatory meetings from four to three. It broadens the alternative mailing and notification methods to incorporate it all, EIF deformation meetings, annual reports, and potential amendments. SB 1140 eliminates the mandate for the public financing authority to publish meeting notices and newspaper.

Instead, it enables the forming district to electronically submit its resolution of intention to establish the district to other taxing entities. Furthermore, it removes the requirement to mail annual report notices via first class mail. As you can tell, this is an efficiency and a reorganization of the way the process works.

SB 1140 expands a type of projects that EIFDs and CRDs can finance to include projects that improve air quality. These benefits will significantly improve the ability for EIFDs and CRDs to advance their mission to support economic development and spur climate change resiliency and communities across the state.

This Bill has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote any. Discussion on file item 38.

[Roll Call]

The Senator moves to call. Moving on to file item 3039. Senator Dodd, are you prepared? He is ready.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 904 by Senator Dodd an accolade to transportation.

Senator, Madam President, Members, Today I'm presenting SB 904. This is a district Bill that updates the enabling legislation of the Sonoma Marin Area rail Transit District, or smart train as they call it, and authorizes smart special district to utilize a voter initiative in order to ensure greater financial stability.

The Smart train is an incredible example of a public transit project that advances many of our state's top goals, increased rail and bicycle use, transit oriented development and collaboration by local governments at a regional scale. Since coming into service in 2017, Smart has overcome wildfires, floods and a global pandemic that devastated public transit.

Despite those obstacles, they keep chugging along and at the end of 2023 became the first transit system in the Bay Area to recover to their pre pandemic ridership numbers. This Bill also empowers the voters of this special district for the first time to pursue their own ballot measures through a voter initiative.

A voter approved, qualified initiative process will provide an opportunity to enhance community engagement and ensure greater accountability and direction for how to best dedicate future resources to operate a small system. I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Any discussion on file item 39. See none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado- Gil. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballero, Aye. Cortese, Aye. Dahl, No. Dodd, Aye. Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove, No. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, No. Laird, Aye. Limon, Aye. Mcguire. Menjavar, Aye. Min. Newman, Aye. Nguyen, No. Niello, No. Ochoa Bogh, No. Padilla, Aye. Portantino, Aye Roth, Aye. Rubio. Seyarto, No. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Stern, Aye. Umberg. Wahab, Aye. Wiener, Aye Wilk. No.

Senator Dodd, move sika. Moving towards file item 40. Senator Becker. He is prepared.

Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 1018 by Senator Becker. An act relating to electricity.

Senator Becker.

Thank you, Madam President. This Bill will allow hydrogen producers to use renewable energy directly from solar or wind farms to make green hydrogen and will allow factories to do the same thing to provide heat to run their processes with clean electricity rather than fossil fuels.

Our scoping plan predicts 10 gigawatts of hydrogen production powered directly from off grid renewables. But there is a problem. You cannot do this today because of something called the over the fence rule. This rule says if you sell power to anyone, you must be regulated as a public utility, which would kill any project.

There are a few exemptions to this, limited to power produced on the same property as the buyer or a single adjacent property, hence the name over the fence rule. The problem is that to generate enough power to produce hydrogen or electrify a factory, you need a lot more space for solar wind than just a single adjacent property.

SB 1018 solves this problem by allowing a large solar or wind farm to sell their output directly to a single customer who will use that power for producing hydrogen or providing industrial heat. By limiting this exemption to allow sales to a single customer, we're keeping the consumer protections under current law in place.

This Bill will support the growth of green hydrogen and industrial electrification using off grid renewables, which will ensure it makes use of clean energy and avoids putting new stress on the grid or impacting electricity rates. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have any discussion on file item 40? Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd. Durazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, no. Padilla. Portatino, aye. Roth, aye.

Rubio, aye. Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, no.

Senator Becker moves to call. The next three items on our list are file item 41, 42 and 43. Senator Roth, you're up first. Is the Senator prepared? He is.

Secretary, please read Senator Bill 1249 by Senator Roth. Enact relating to older adults.

Please proceed, Senator.

Thank you, Madam President. This Bill seeks to address the needs of California's rapidly aging population by modernizing Californians. California's Older Californians Act.

The Bill proposes to reform the Older Californians Act to conform to recent changes in federal regulations which implement the federal Older Americans Act and introduces accountability and performance measures, updates governance structures and establishes timeframes for the California Department of Aging to engage in stakeholder consultation. Ask for NY vote.

Any discussion? Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Roth moves. Leader, are you prepared for item 42? She is ready. Secretary, please read.

Just need a couple of seconds here.

There we go. Secretary, please read. Fire.

Item 42, Senate Bill 1337 by Senator Gonzalez. Enact relating to elections.

Please proceed. Thank you, madam President. I rise today to present SB 1337, which will provide greater transparency about the funders of referendum petitions seeking to overturn state law. This Bill will require the top three funders be listed directly on each signature page.

As we know, direct democracy is an important tool for Californians, but unfortunately, large corporations are abusing this process to overturn legislation passed by this very body.

And recent petition campaigns to qualify referendums have been rife with examples of paid signature gatherers misrepresenting what a measure would do and refusing to produce the top funders sheet already required under law. SB 1337 will ensure voters can make informed decisions and are aware of who is funding efforts to overturn laws before deciding to sign a petition.

I respectfully ask for your. I vote on SB 1337. Thank you, Senator.

Any discussion on file item 42 C? None. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator moves to call. Moving on to fire number 43. Senator Hurtato is prepared. Secretary, please read file item 43.

Senate Bill 1367 by Senator Hurtado an act relating to agriculture and making an appropriation therefore.

Thank you, Madam President. SB 1367 seeks to safeguard funding for the safe animal feed education program by extending the sunset for the program from January 12025 to January 12031. This Bill has received bipartisan support throughout the Committee process, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion on the item? I'm seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Senator Hurtado moves to call. The next three items on our list are file item 46, 47 and 48. Senator Eggman is prepared.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1184 by Senator Eggman an accolade to mental health.

Senator, please proceed. Thank you very much, madam President. This Bill goes to try to ensure that people do not compensate during a hold due to the lack of medication.

That says that the order and the Reese hearing that was established on the first hold will last until the person regains capacity or the next Reese hearing is held in order to make sure treatment is not disrupted and people are able to return to the highest capacity they can and to make sure their rights are insured.

I ask for your Aye vote.

Any discussion on file item 46? Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballero, Aye. Cortese, Aye. Dahle, Aye. Dodd, Aye. Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove, Aye. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, Aye. Laird, Aye. Limon, Aye. McGuire. Menjivar, Aye. Min, Aye. Newman, Aye. Nguyen, Aye. Niello, Aye. Ochoa Bach, Aye. Padilla, Aye. Portantino, Aye. Roth, Aye. Rubio, Aye. Seyarto, Aye. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Stern, Aye. Umberg. Wahab, Aye. Wiener, Aye. Wilk, Aye.

Senator Eggman moves to call. Colleagues, that will change in what order I gave you earlier. The next three are file item 47, 52 and 53. Senator Min, are you prepared? He is. Secretary please read.

Please read Senate Bill 1174 by Senator Min. An act relating to elections.

Senator Minh.

Thank you, madam President. SB 1174 would ensure that local governments cannot implement their own voter identification laws in local elections. It is very clear already as a matter of existing law, that local jurisdictions, including charter cities, are not permitted to impose voter identification requirements that would impact charters, county elections, state elections, or federal elections.

However, there is some ambiguity, as I read it in the law right now, regarding whether charter cities can implement their own voter ID requirements in a different time and place for their own elections. This Bill would close that any ambiguity and make clear that 100 local jurisdictions cannot implement 100 different voter ID requirements.

This should be a state matter decide. And, of course, my local City of Huntington Beach has tried to pass this or has passed a voter ID requirement, purportedly which is under litigation based on reports of voter fraud, such as the big lie, which have been proven to be false.

If evidence was presented to this body of the need for voter identification changes, I think it would be appropriate for us to act. No such evidence has been presented, and Orange County, of course, is known for having some of the safest and most secure voting in the state and in the country.

And so SB 1174 would try to address this matter and ensure that local jurisdictions cannot impose their own voter ID requirements to try to engage in culture wars and try to disenfranchise voters. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senators, do we have any discussion on this item? I see none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado, aye. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. McGuire. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, no.

Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio, aye. Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg. Wahab , aye. Wiener. aye. Wilk, no.

Senator Min moves to call. Moving on to file item 52. Senator Skinner, are you prepared? She is prepared.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1210 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to utility service.

Senator Skinner, you may proceed. Thank you, madam President. Members, I think you've all been familiar with either individuals who are in the process of building a residential unit. Or even a commercial unit, for that matter. Or large entities who are building such units. And they are then facing very high costs of variety of utility hookups.

Whether for sewage, electricity, water, gas, you name it. And also timelines that can be considered absurd. There are many, many residential units that are ready for occupancy and yet cannot be occupied because they have not yet had that hookup. Now, while my Bill originally tried to address all of that. And I understand that that was. It was.

It's necessary, but it was too ambitious. What I've done instead with this Bill is at least provided some transparency. So that you can contact whichever utility entity, whether it's electricity, gas, or water, that is going to do that. You will need a hookup for. And you can determine in advance what the cost of that hookup will be.

So this is simply and solely a transparency measure. It purely requires those entities, meaning California utilities who provide utility hookup service. To have list their fee schedule. So that we know in advance what we are going to expect as to what this cost will be. And with that, I ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Senator. Colleagues, do we have any discussion on this item? Going once, seeing none. Secretary, please read Alan.

[Roll Call]

Senator Skinner moves a call. Senator Skinner, you prepare for the next fire. Item. She is. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1211 by Senator Skinner, an act relating to land use.

Senator Skinner, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam President, Members. ADUs are one of our California's housing success stories. They are relatively affordable to construct, and I say relatively. They are an official use of existing residential land and existing housing stock.

And they are now, I think, the recent numbers show that since we began to make it easier to remove some of the obstacles for ADUs, some 100,000 in California have been constructed. So that's since about 2018. Current law allows for ADUs on multifamily properties, but it unnecessarily restricts what is called detached ADUs.

So our current law requires the ADUs on a multifamily property to be a conversion of something within the building envelope. But I think all of us are aware that there are some multifamily complexes that have lots of land associated with the complex where it could be appropriate to have a detached ADU.

So what this bill does is provide some flexibility where ADUs can be sited on multifamily properties and allows ministerial approval of up to eight detached ADUs on that multifamily property, as long as it doesn't double the existing units on the bill. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Do we have any discussion on this item? File Item 53? I am seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members one more time.

[Roll Call].

Senator Glazer moves to a call. Moves a call. Moving on to File Item 56. We have 56, 57 and 58. All three on deck. Senator Wilk looks prepared.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1495 by Senator Wilk and accolade to alcoholic beverages.

Senator Wilk. Thank you, Madam President. Members, I present SB 1495, which would allow alcohol licensees to sponsor events or purchase advertising space from the world famous Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles. The home venue of the Roastmaster himself. What's his name? Jeff. What, you guys don't know who the Roastmaster is? No, not Jeff Stone.

The cemetery is currently a permanent retail on sale license holder with a type 88 license, which doesn't allow for this arrangement. The narrow tidehouse exemption allowed for under this Bill would help generate important revenues for the care, maintenance and improvement of the cemetery grounds and its ability to continue to host many popular cultural events.

There is no opposition. The Bill pass out of the Geo Committee 16 to zero. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have any discussion or debate on file item 56? I am seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Wilk moves a call. We're gonna go backwards. We're gonna go back to file item 45. Senator Umberg, are you prepared? He is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 940 by Senator Umberg. An act relating to civil disputes.

Senator Humberg, you may begin.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues, this is a Bill that addresses both consumer arbitration and other kinds of mediation and arbitration. As I think most of us know, it's becoming increasingly evident that disputes are often now being either required to go to arbitration or referred to arbitration. Consumer arbitration is of a different sort.

If you bought a cell phone, you've probably been engaged in a consumer arbitration agreement, whether you know it or not. This Bill simply says that if you've got a dispute that's $12,500 or less, you can opt to go to small claims court rather than going through arbitration.

If you do go to arbitration, that arbitration has to be conducted, for example, in California versus some other place. There are some other elements to the Bill.

One other element of the Bill says that the state bar of California can adopt a process of certifying that arbitration mediation entities, alternate dispute resolution entities, can apply to be certified in that they qualify because they follow certain ethical guidelines, that kind of thing. And it also has provisions that deal with conflict of interest of arbitration firms.

With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, any discussion? I am seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, no. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd. Dorazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, aye. Grove. Hurtado, aye. Jones. Laird, aye. Limon. McGuire. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, no. Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio. Seyarto no. Skinner, aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener. Wilk, no.

Senator Umberg moves a call. The next three we have coming up on file are gonna be file items 57, 58 and 62, starting off with Senator Skinner, file item 57. If the Senator is prepared, she is.

Senate Bill 898 by Senator Skinner an act relating to vehicles.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, there's an interesting phenomenon, well documented, of a high incidence of left sided skin cancers on your arms, face. And this is especially dominant within people who drive for a living. The same phenomenon for right sided skin cancers is evident in those countries where you drive, the driver's seat is on the right side of the car for versus the left side of the car.

So what this Bill does is provide for uv window filtering just on the passenger, or, excuse me, the driver side window for commercial vehicles where people are driving for a living to protect those drivers from this skin cancer. And this skin cancer disproportionately affects both bus and truck drivers, who obviously, because it's their living, often receive 6 hours of uv exposure while driving per day. So the Bill purely applies to the windows on the driver's side.

Just that one large window for specified large trucks, commercial trucks, not light duty utility trucks or not passenger cars and trucks. And the effective date is moved to 2032. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Do we have any discussion or debate? Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam President. I just have something for the body to consider here. When you're looking at bills like this, one of them is the main issue I have with this Bill, even though it is now just for trucks and commercial vehicles, is side windows are tempered glass, and tempered glass is easily, when you punch it, it breaks into little bits and falls down.

So you have really quick access to get inside in the event of an emergency. When you put a laminate inside the window, it makes it much like a windshield. And a windshield. You cannot just punch out the windshield. Takes a while before you can actually get somebody out of a vehicle via the windshield.

So if we're going to require this type of treatment to the window, not only does it raise the price of the car might not be. I mean, the vehicle might not be that much, but I'm more concerned about quick access, not just by emergency workers, but also by passersby, who are usually the first on scene of any of these accidents.

And when it makes the most difference is when these vehicles are on fire and the glass hasn't broken out, the quickest way to get to them is to punch out that window. There are aftermarket treatments that can be used for people that are in the business and that are affected by these type of. By the uv rays. And so those can be applied as needed for the people that have concerns that they are being exposed.

So for those reasons, I'm going to be opposing this Bill and those like it, because those few seconds are few minutes that it takes to gain better access or to go to the other side of the vehicle and try to access it from the other side can mean the difference between somebody surviving a very bad accident and not.

And so. And I've seen a few of those, and those aren't fun. So with that, I'll be opposing it. And I encourage you to consider that when you're voting on this Bill. Thank you.

Any further discussion, Senator Skinner, you may close.

Thank you, Madam President. To respond to that. While it is more common for glass manufacturers to use laminate to add that uv protection, tempered glass can also have uv protection, and there are companies who do that.

And you will note that the Bill, this would not go into effect until 2032. So there's plenty of time for more companies to be able to use the uv protection with tempered glass, which addresses the safety concerns. And the Bill does not preempt federal law because it doesn't affect the vehicle safety standards.

There are already 20% of cars that have such uv protection on those side windows. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Skinner moves a call. File item 58. Senator Durazzo, is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1350 by Senator Durazo. An accurate into private employment.

Senator Durazo? Madam President, SB 1350 simply requires the Department of Industrial Relations to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies the state may adopt to protect domestic workers from work related injuries and illnesses. Despite caring for what we hold most dear, our families in our homes, domestic workers remain without any health and safety protections.

A year into the pandemic, domestic workers were three times more likely to have contracted Covid-19 than the General population. Additionally, climate accelerated disasters magnify the vulnerability and dangers that domestic workers and day laborers face on a daily basis.

During the wildfires that devastated California, domestic workers were asked to stay behind to fight fires, guard homes or pets, work in smoky conditions, and clean up toxic ash. Beyond these extreme dangers, domestic workers also face the risk of injury and illness in their day to day work related to lifting, chemical handling and repetitive strain.

Since the governor's veto last year of my prior legislation removing the exclusion of private pay household domestic service workers from health and safety requirements, I have been in conversation with his office regarding the health and safety of domestic workers.

I'm hopeful that those conversations will result in a meaningful step forward this year in addressing the legitimate health and safety risks associated with domestic work. This measure has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Senator Dali, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I must rise in opposition. This is just another opportunity for trial attorneys to have a field day with somebody that's mowing your lawn or working around your property. We have OSHA rules for businesses, and this is just one step further. That's why the Bill got vetoed last year.

For those reasons, I will ask for a no vote on this Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto, you're recognized.

A question for the author, please.

Will the author take a question?

Yes, she will. I'll respond in my closing.

Yes, Senator Seyarto, please proceed with a question.

Or did she want to respond later? Okay, the question is, which domestic workers are you talking about? Are you talking about full time workers, or are you talking about the person that might come by and leave their card on your door because they want to trim your palm trees?

Or are you talking about the person that might clean five or six houses houses a week, but only comes to one house maybe once every couple of weeks, or once every four weeks, once a month? Are we talking about all of them? Is there any further discussion or debate? I'm not done.

I just needed to answer that question.

The author mentioned that she would answer in her closing.

So I'm going to assume that it includes all of them.

And if that's the case, then we can call this the Domestic Worker Unemployment act, because nobody is going to have OSHA come in and certify their home to be able to hire somebody to come and that wants to come over and trim their palm trees, for instance, because that is a very, that's something that they're seeking.

They're seeking a temporary work, doing a specific task that they're only going to be there for a little bit. If homeowners are going to be charged with the task or be subject to being sued, as my colleague from Bieber has stated, they're just not going to hire people that probably need that work the most.

Remember, we're not allowed to be asking people if they are immigrants or illegal or legal or anything like that. You're just left to either hire somebody or not. And if you don't, if you can't because you're afraid of being sued, people that are out there seeking that job, they're not going to have work.

And so I don't understand how this is going to help them. It certainly isn't going to help homeowners. And it just adds to what is basically a paga issue that we have with businesses, and it exposed them to liability. So for those reasons, I will be opposing this Bill.

You know, I opposed it last year, and I continue to have concerns about it this year.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have any other discussion on this item? Senator Durazo, you may close. Thank you.

Let me just clarify here. This Bill requires, simply requires the Department of Industrial Relations to make recommendations. There is no vote on changing the law. It's to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies that the state may adopt, may adopt to protect domestic workers from work related injuries and illnesses.

This is not, unfortunately, removing the exclusion of domestic workers from what should be something that we all support because we want safe environment in our homes. That's where we live, that's where our kids live. We should want the safest possible place. It is a workplace. There's no disputing that.

But more than anything, this Bill is only to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies the state may adopt. I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you, Senator.

Secretary, please call the rom file, item 58.

[Roll Call]

Senator Durazo moves a call. Senators, these are the three next on deck. We still have Members off the floor. Roll call will still be placed on a call after the first round. We have. Up next file item 6465 and 66. Senator Small cuevas is prepared with file item 64.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1137 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas an accolade discrimination.

Senator? Thank you, madam President, and good morning, Members. I'm pleased to present SB 1137, which would make California the pioneering state to recognize intersectionality and our civil rights laws by clarifying that discrimination is prohibited not only because of one protected trait, but by any combination of two or more protected traits.

Under current law, all individuals are protected from discrimination. But these cases are exacerbated when an individual has experienced discrimination based on a combination of intersections of protected classes. For example, when a black woman brings forward a discrimination case, she may be forced to address her race and gender claims separately.

In cases where intersectional discrimination occurs, the defense may attempt to use the separation of characteristics to defeat the claim entirely. Courts throughout the nation have ruled on these cases inconsistently and largely on a case by case basis.

The intersectional discrimination is not limited to race and gender discrimination can be expressed based on one's age, race, national origin, or any combination of such classes. Those of us who live at the intersections of multiple protected classes know that these experiences cannot always be neatly separated.

We are one whole self, and we carry all of our identities with us at all times. And it is necessary that our laws reflect that. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Do we have any discussion on this item? I see none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballero, Aye. Cortese, Aye. Dahle. Dodd, Aye. Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, No. Laird, Aye. Limon, Aye. McGuire. Menjivar, Aye. Min, Aye. Newman, Aye. Nguyen, No. Niello. Ochoa Bach. Padilla, Aye. Portantino, Aye. Roth, Aye. Rubio. Seyarto, No. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Stern, Aye. Umberg, Aye. Wahab, Aye. Wiener. Wilk, No.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas moves the call. Members, we're gonna go back to file item 44. This is Senate Bill 1170 by Senator Menjivar. She's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1170 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Thank you, Mr. President. Getting a little bit of whiplash here. We're going back and forth. I'm rising for SB 1170. When candidates run for office, they face many issues concerning their safety and well being, to threats, harassment, and hostility often received during the campaign.

These instances can take a toll on a candidate's mental health, and that can all look differently for the candidate, but run the gamut of increased anxiety, sleep disturbance, and panic attacks. SB 1170 will allow non incumbent candidates running for political office to use campaign funds for campaign related mental health care services.

I think it's appropriate as where May is Mental Health Awareness month that we look to ensure that we're closing the gaps in this area as much as possible.

A 2023 survey conducted by the California Women's List found that over 100 Californians who ran for office between 2016 and 2023, more than 80% of them reported receiving online abuse, and over 50% experienced harassment in person. Over 50% of women of color and LGB-plus women experienced stalking on the campaign trail, and over one third of them physical violence.

The coverage would be for services including therapy provided in a group or private setting, either virtually or in person, by a professional license by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences to address mental health issues or by an associate accruing the hours for such a license.

We can't stop the harassment from occurring by allowing campaign funds to be used for mental health care costs that are directly from related to experiences in the campaign will help strive to increase their diversity of voices in government. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, any further discussion on this measure? Any further discussion? All right, seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

No. Senator Menjavar moves a call. We're gonna move next to file item 59. This is Senate Bill 1103 by Senator Menjavar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1103 by Senator Manjavar, an act relating to tenancy.

Thank you, Mister President. Back up on now. SB 1103. Across California, small communities serving businesses and nonprofits are being displaced and going out of business at an alarming rate. Unclear and unfail lease terms, as well as exorbitant added fees, make it extremely difficult to find and stay in a commercial space.

After working with a lot of Members and the chair and judiciary, I took a lot of amendments that trimmed this Bill. To be clear. Now, SB 1103 will define what is a qualified commercial tenant. Require the tenant to notify the landlord that they are a qualified commercial tenant.

Will then require the landlord, as a response, to inform the tenant to review supporting documentation that justifies an increase in CAm fees, which are maintenance fees that can be compared to an HOA fee for residentials.

It requires the landlord, upon request of the qualified commercial tenant, to provide supporting documentation that justifies an increase in CAm fees to make sure they're being used for what they're supposed to be used for.

We're going to put certain parameters on how the Cam fees can be charged again, ensuring that they're used for what legally, they're allowed to be used. And finally, we're going to require that the commercial lease contracts are negotiated in five different languages to include Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean.

This Bill does not limit commercial rent or impose any form of commercial rent control, and it does not impose or change any requirements for other contracts or financial documents. It only affects a very small subset of commercial leases, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this measure. Any discussion or debate seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call].

Senator Menjivar moves the call. We're gonna go back to our file order, Members. This--we're gonna start with File Item 65. This is Senate Bill 1223 by Senator Becker. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1223 by Senator Becker, an act relating to privacy.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm here today to present a bill about regulating brain data. Yes, brain data. And if that sounds futuristic, I can tell you everyone who was in a Judiciary Committee that day, listening to my experts, including Rafa Yuste, who inspired President Obama's BRAIN Initiative, everyone was paying rapt attention.

Nobody was on their phones, nobody was reading anything but paying attention to hear him talk about his Oppenheimer moment when he realized that he was able to not just read the thoughts of mice, but to implant thoughts into mice. So this is not science fiction.

And a lot of this research is happening here in our area, and the experts themselves are the ones raising the red flag on this. There's been about 19 billion dollars invested globally in over 200 neuroscience companies, including a wristband that will attempt to translate information about intentions and gestures from your wrist.

So, invasive technologies like you've heard of--maybe Elon Musk's neural link--invasive devices like that actually are already regulated as medical devices. However, there's now over 30 class of neurotech companies that are doing noninvasive neurotech products. These devices record brain data using EEG sensors, but because they're not considered medical devices, they're not so tightly regulated.

So that allows companies to collect and sell user data without consumer permission, and there's just a recent analysis of the privacy policies of all of these companies. And, yes, they have the right to do whatever they want with brain data in almost all cases. And the CCPA protects personal information, but, again, it doesn't cover neural data.

So what this bill will do will make sure that neural data is covered by our CCPA by defining and classifying it as sensitive personal information and extending CCPA protections to neural data. Regulating neural technology early is crucial to ensure ethical use, protect privacy, establish standards, and address future challenges. Again, if you haven't heard about this, you will in the near future, and we in California have the chance to get ahead of this and respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Senator Becker, do you know what I'm thinking?

Yes.

Any further discussion or debate? Is there any further discussion or debate on this issue? Senator Becker knew that. All right, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Senator Becker thinks a call. Moves a call. All right, we're going to move next to File Item 66. This is Senate Bill 1224 by Senator Ochoa Bogh. She is prepared.

Senate Bill 1224 by Senator Ochoa Bogh, an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, Senate Bill 1224 will allow the Riverside County fairgrounds in Indio to serve alcohol on site as long as food service is available to the public at all times during the events.

This change ensures the fair can continue operating as it has for almost two decades, allowing the community to benefit from the substantial revenue that fair events contribute to the local economy. I respectfully ask for an aye vote any discussion or debate on this matter.

Any discussion or debate. Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Niello? Aye.

Senator Ochoa Bogh moves a call. We're going to move next to file item 67 and 68. These are both measures by Senator Min. Start with file item 67, SB 1271. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1271 by Senator Minh an act realting to public safety.

Thank you, Mister President. SB 1271 would enhance the safety and regulatory compliance of electric bicycles and electric scooters by requiring all e bikes and e scooters to be manufactured with batteries that meet the stringent standards of the European Union and underwriters laboratories.

It would also modify the definition of e bike classes to clarify what the appropriate class for a switchable e bike is, if any, helping with safety concerns. In recent years, the sale of e bikes has skyrocketed, and in turn, this has increased the concerns about potential speed and fire risks.

This measure would help consumers by modifying the definition of e bike classes to clarify what constitutes an e bike, as well as removing lower quality, high fire risk personal mobility device batteries from the market. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, any discussion on this measure? Any discussion on this measure? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Members, we have a full house again, so we're going to go through the role one more time. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Here we go. On a vote of 39 to zero, the measure is adopted. We're going to move next to file item 68. This is Senate Bill 1286 by Senator Min. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1286 by Senator Min, an act relating to debt collection.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr President. In recent years, we've seen a rise in predatory debt collection practices targeted at small business owners. SB 1286 would try to address this by protecting small business owners under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Act when there are individuals who have personally signed for their business debt.

There are over 3 million small businesses in California run by individuals, and these business owners are operating very similarly to individual consumers when navigating the financial marketplace. This was particularly true after the Covid-19 pandemic, as they struggled to acquire capital, especially for minority-owned businesses that often struggled to find credit.

Providing a personal guarantee for business debt opens the door for small business owners to be subjected personally to abusive debt collection practices of the kind that the Rosenthal Act was meant to prohibit, including threats, contacting borrowers at inconvenient hours, using false statements, or adding unauthorized interest or fees to the amounts owed.

Under SB 1286, borrowers would still be responsible for paying these debts, but would be protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive collection practices. I respect for your aye vote.

Members, any further discussion on this measure? Any further discussion? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, we have a full house, so we're gonna go through the role one last time. Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 28 to nine, the measure carries. We're going to move next to file item 69. This is Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Wahab. She's prepared.

Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Wahab an act relating to health facilities.

Thank you. I rise to present SB 1354, the Protect Seniors at All Costs Act. SB 1354 aligns the law with regulations regarding skilled nursing facilities and protects the rights of residents regardless of their payment source. SB 1354 also requires residents being transferred or discharged be informed that they may be eligible for Medi Cal's long term care program to help pay for their stay.

Payment source discrimination forces Low income seniors to move away from family, friends and their healthcare providers in order to access a facility that will accept Medi Cal, sometimes hundreds of miles away. This practice only exists so skilled nursing facilities can make space for more lucrative private pay or Medicare residents.

SB 1354 will strengthen and enhance the rights of residents in these facilities and protect against discrimination based on their payment source. I respectfully ask for an aye.

Members any further discussion on this measure, seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 30 to nine, the measure passes. Members, we're about to go into recess to return here to the chambers at 1:30 sharp. 1:30 sharp. Prior to that, I want to recognize the majority leader, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mister President. Democratic Members, we're going to have lunch at 12:00 as mentioned by the presiding officer, and then a 12:20 p.m. caucus. Thank you. In the Maddie lounge.

Thank you. And recognizing the minority leader, Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, same for the Republicans. Lunch is being provided and we will meet in Room 215 for our caucus meeting.

Thank you, Members, for a productive morning. We will be in recess until 1:30 sharp. Good afternoon, Members. The Senate will convene in 30 seconds. Good afternoon, Members. We are back from recess. We're going to go back to third reading, give you a heads-up to the bills that will be coming to you.

We're going to start with file item 71. Moving on to 77. And then to 177. That's out of order. File item 177. So, with the cooperation of our builders in the vicinity, we're going to begin with Senator Dodds. This is file item 71, SB 1379. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1379 by Senator Dodd, an act relating to public retirement and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Dodd, the floor is yours. Please give him your attention, Members.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, today I'm presenting SB 1379. This is a district Bill to temporarily waive the 960 hours limit for retired annuities working for the Solano County sheriff to address a critical staffing need in Vallejo. The Bill will sunset after three years. Can I repeat that? The Bill will sunset after three years.

The Vallejo City Council declared a State of emergency last year during a major police officer staffing shortage. Despite being authorized for 132 officers, Vallejo PD currently only has 32 patrol officers and four detectives.

As a result, the Solano County sheriff is taxed with responding to emergency calls at Valejo and this Bill is essential to assist them with responding to these calls. The Bill requires the sheriff to try to hire full time active deputies before using a retired annuitant and it requires thorough background checks on anyone being hired.

There is precedent for waiving the hour limit when needed. Last year, Governor Newsoms Executive order, in response to winter storms waived this 960 hours limit for retired annuities working for the state recovery rules. Given Vallejo's immediate public safety crisis the city can't afford to wait for more officers to be trained.

Without this Bill, the Solano County Sheriff will not be able to respond to the needs of Vallejo. The Bill has broad local support, no recorded opposition. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Any discussion on this measure? Any discussion, Members? All right, we're going to. I'm going to ask the secretary to call the roll. But let me remind Members to please. We're going to go through the roll twice. We have a full house. Please don't shout out your name at the completion of the roll. We'll call back through it another time so you can have the opportunity to respond to your name. So with that, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 35, Noes four the measure passes on the urgency. Eyes 35 knows four on the measure. We're going to move to file item 77. This is Senate Bill 1418 by Senator Archuleta. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1418 by Senator Archuleta an act relating to land use.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to present Senate Bill 1418. Senate Bill 1418 simply streamlines the hydrogen fueling station permitting process in the same way that we do for the battery electric vehicle charging stations. A few considerations were raised in the policy Committee that this streamlined permitting process has the potential to be overburdensome for smaller cities.

We've taken the survey. That is not the case. To address these concerns, I amended the bill on the Senate Floor to delay the compliance period for smaller cities by an additional two years. Additionally, I readjusted the population threshold to extend this extended compliance period to even more cities.

In short, we are going to take advantage of the federal funding coming into California through our successful hydrogen hub application. We are going to need policy in place to expedite and development and deployment of hydrogen infrastructure. SB 1418 is one such policy and will help California transition to a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Any discussion on this measure? Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. President. Appreciate the Senator's efforts. My concern today about the measure is the inclusion of storage facilities, which can have safety implications. Fueling stations, one thing, but we know hydrogen is an extremely combustible fuel, so just want to make sure there's still local control. So, looking forward to hopefully finding a way to yes in the future, but won't be supporting the measure today. Thanks.

All right, any further discussion, Members? Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Archuleta, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All debate having ceased, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 33 to zero, the measure passes. We're gonna make a detour and continue with our file one more item before we move to file item 177. This is file item 77. Senate Bill 1418 by Senator Roth. Excuse me, file item 78. This is SB 902 by Senator Roth.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 902 by Senator Roth and act relating to firearms.

Senator Roth.

Thank you, Mister President. This Bill will add an automatic 10-year firearms prohibition to misdemeanor animal abuse convictions. The Bill passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee with unanimous bipartisan support.

As you know, California has a history of ensuring that firearms do not fall into the hands of those who have demonstrated violent tendencies in an attempt to prevent future violence against others. Crimes such as stalking, endangering the health of a child, and endangering the health of an elder or a dependent adult.

Research reflects that 41% of intimate partner violence offenders had histories of animal cruelty and that individuals who commit animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. Based on the connection, in 2016, the FBI amended the National Incident Based Reporting System to start collecting data on animal abuse.

Now, Senators, we're talking about serious animal cruelty here. Incidents convictions of Penal Code Section 597. Convictions for the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing of an animal.

Given the numerous studies showing that animal abuse is a predictor of violence against humans, California needs to ensure that people with a history of animal cruelty are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for at least 10 years.

We've been engaged with those in support and in opposition to the measure, and we took amendments to remove the felony for non-compliance with the firearms prohibition, thus limiting the penalty to a misdemeanor. I will respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Any discussion on this measure? Any discussion Members? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

On a vote of 36 to one, the measure passes.

All right, Members, we're going to make sure you're paying attention. We're going to move next to file item 126. Of course. This is Senate Bill 915 by Senator Cortese. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 915 by Senator Cortese an accolade to autonomous vehicles.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister President. Colleagues, SB 915 allows cities with a population greater than 250,000 to pass ordinances regulating autonomous vehicle services, or AV's. This is commercial service. Any smaller bordering cities may pass a similar ordinance. These provisions promote a balance between the local control and regional consistency. Currently, the DMV and PUC authorize AB services.

They hold proceedings to gather public input, but there's no guarantee the state will consider local concerns or has the capacity to do so. Governance of local streets and roads, of course, has long fallen under the shared jurisdiction of local government and state government. The operations of these vehicles should be no different than any other motor vehicles.

Ordinances cannot be used to ban the operation of these services. Per very express language in the Bill, there's literally a no ban cause in the Bill. The Bill also ensures equitable access for people with disabilities and requires all of these vehicles to have an override system for first responders to address recent issues that have occurred. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Cortese, any discussion or debate on this measure? Members, any discussion or debate? Senator Becker.

Thank you. Just wanted to say that I know there's been a bunch of concern from the technology industry, some of the companies affected, about some of the provisions. I know there were a number of amendments that were just taken by the author, and I appreciate that. To try to kind of clarify.

I think there's a concern about kind of creating any kind of patchwork system that would just be. Be really unworkable. But I appreciate the author. I know he's been working diligently to kind of avoid that scenario, and, you know, has we discussed some ideas to continue looking at that going forward.

So with that, I'll be supporting the Bill and look forward to working with them going forward.

Thank you, Senator Becker, any further discussion or debate? Members, any further discussion or debate? Sena and Senator Cortese, you may close. Respectfully ask for your. I vote. Thank you, sir. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye. Blakespear. Bradford, Aye. Caballero. Cortese, Aye. Dahle, No. Dodd. Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, No. Laird, Aye. Limon, Aye. McGuire, Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Min, Aye. Newman, Aye. Nguyen, No. Niello, No. Ochoa Bach, No. Padilla, Aye. Portantino, Aye. Roth, Aye. Rubio. Seyarto, No. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Stern, Aye. Umberg, Aye. Wahab, Aye. Wiener, No. Wilk.

Senator Cortese moves a call. Members, we're going to go back to our Third Reading file order, starting with File Item 79, followed by 80 and 81. We'll first begin with File Item 79. This is SB 907 by Senator Newman. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 907 by Senator Newman, an act relating to County Boards of Education.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 907 is a district bill which will improve representation and electoral participation in Orange County by making two very sensible changes to the Orange County Board of Education; one: increasing the number of trustees from the current five to seven, and two: shifting the Board's election cycle from the primary ballot as currently conducted and into the general election in November.

Since Orange County's Department of Education was established in its modern form, the population of OC has nearly doubled, from 1.8 million in 1977 to its current population of nearly 3.2 million. That makes it the third largest county by population in the state.

Of the state's ten largest counties, Orange County is currently one of only four whose County Boards of Education have only five trustees. Of the counties which still have five trustees, the only one comparable in size to Orange County is the County of San Diego.

In the nearly five decades since the constitution of the Orange County Board of Education, Orange County's population has also become infinitely more diverse. According to the 2000 Census, more than 50 percent of OC's population at that time was White.

By the time in the most recent census, that share had dropped to less than 37 percent, with OC now having become a resoundingly majority-minority county. Expanding the Board from its current five trustees to seven will ensure that this board more fully reflects that diversity within its elected membership.

Moving the election of the OCBOE trustees into the November general will ensure higher participation by that more diverse electorate. That would be a positive development in not one, but two directions. First, as mentioned, it will result over time in a board that more closely reflects OC's changing population.

Secondly, and just as importantly, including the vote for County Board of Trustees on the November ballot will give voters a better opportunity to engage and connect with candidates and the eventual elected board members as part of that critical task of connecting residents to civic institutions about which they are increasingly uninformed and from which they are increasingly disconnected.

As I've emphasized in my conversations with the opposition and with others, the impetus for this bill does not arise out of politics. Enhancing the responsiveness of a governing body and improving participation in the election of that body are objectively good goals, and that's what the provisions of this bill seek to do. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Discussion and debate? I see microphones up from Senator Min and Senator Nguyen. Start with Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as a proud co-author of this bill. As many of you know, I authored legislation last year which unfortunately did not make it across the finish line that would have done substantially much of this.

And the problem in Orange County is that this is the only elected body in the county that is decided on a won and done in the primary election. No other election in Orange County is like this. And so voters are genuinely confused when I talk to them about--they--most of them don't understand that the vote that they cast or choose not to cast in the primary is the only vote they'll have for the Orange County Board of Education. There is no runoff. There is no general election. There is no top two, as with other elections.

At the same time, as my author, my colleague from Fullerton has aptly pointed out, Orange County has gotten very big and very diverse, and I think it--given the low turnout in these primary elections, given the confusion among voters, and just by way of context, in the March 2024 Election, we only had 37 percent turnout for Orange County generally. Certainly it was much, much lower for the Orange County Board of Education. So this is not a body that is fully elected with the full representation in mind. So I would urge my colleagues to vote aye on this bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Min. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I actually rise in opposition, representing majority of Orange County in my district. This bill is peer politics. If it was a good policy bill, it should be a bill for all the counties in the State of California. No, it is specifically targeted to Orange County, and the reason is because of the opposition has continuously lost elections in Orange County through Board of Education. This last election, all the Members were reelected, almost 50--over 50, not--maybe even 60 percent of the total votes.

So I believe that if it's going to be--if it's a good policy, if the author truly believe it's a good policy, let's make it statewide. Let's make it every county's, every Board of Education in California and not just target to Orange County. With that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen. Any further discussion or debate? No vote. Senator Nguyen's asking for the no vote. I see Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. President. I do not live in Orange County, but I do--but I am the Vice Chair for the Senate Committee on Education, and this is the second time we've seen this bill in this Committee, and again, I'm going to rise to oppose the bill.

And the reason being is that Orange County, the people in Orange County have the opportunity to do this locally within their own school board. The people in the Orange County have the ability to request this to be done locally, and they have not requested it to do it locally.

They have not done so any in the past at all whatsoever, and yet we're taking the step here forward at the state level to say, 'this is what you need to do.' If they did not have an opportunity in the process to be able to do so locally, then perhaps the state should come in and step in and act upon or act for them. But in this case, they have the opportunity. They have chosen not to do this locally.

And this is why it's an overreach by the state to come in and say, 'this is what you need to do.' And if it were good policy with regards to representation, this would be also applied to the most populous county, which would be Los Angeles, which has a population of ten million residents, and they do not even elect their trustees on the Board of Education, who are appointed by a five-member Board of Supervisors. So if this were actually good policy, it would actually apply to counties such as LA.

So I have to agree with my colleague from Orange County that it is politics. We should let locals allow to use their local systems to change the systems if they see fit and if they see a need. In this case, they do not. And with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, Senator Newman, you may close.

Thank you, and appreciate the discussion. I don't think it is true to say that the voters of Orange County don't want to see this change. I think it's more accurate that this particular Board would like not to see this change.

And I would assert, I think you'd all agree, and I think we would all subscribe to the idea that any election that involves more voters is a better election. Any board that results from an election that includes more, not fewer, voters is a more representative public body. That is exactly what we're trying to do here.

This Legislature has a long history of fixing problems at the district level. In this case, we from Orange County are trying to solve a problem for Orange County, a problem that has support from the voters of Orange County. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All debate having ceased, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Please call the absentees one last time.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 29 to nine, the measure passes. Members, we're going to now lift the call on File Item 126. We're going to lift the call. This will be our second time through the roll. This is Senator Cortese's bill. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

All right, on a vote of 26 to nine, the measure passes. Okay, we're gonna move next to File Item 80, followed by 81 and 82, I think. Actually, File Item 80, 81, and I think we're going to 62 and 63. So let's begin with File Item 80. This is SB 930 by Senator Laird. He's prepared.

Senate Bill 930 by Senator Laird. An act relating to highways.

Thank you very much, Mister President. Of the 642 memorial highways and transportation structures in the State of California, 82% are named for men too long. Women who make up half the population, and next year quite likely will make up half of this body, have been woefully disadvantaged in the memorial naming of transportation structures.

This Bill establishes the Memorial Highway Signage Fund to promote equity and memorial highway designations. It does not mean we will not continue to name memorial highways for fallen officers, public officials or others who are men. But this Bill just creates a process for equity to make sure that over time, we catch up.

Signs cost between $8,000 and $10,000. Sometimes that very cost turns away people from being able to designate it or being part of that equity. For this reason, this Bill builds on continued work and sets up a process where, over time, we can catch up. There's no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any discussion on this measure? Any discussion on this measure? I see microphones up from Senator Grove and Senator Skinner. We'll begin with Senator Grove. Just want to make sure people were paying attention. Senator Grove, let's try that again. Senator Grove, the floor is yours.

I think that was a Republican thing that you guys did to me just then. Respectfully, in opposition to this Bill, you know, we designate highway signs and highway memorials. I recently did one for Officer Philip Campas, a SWAT team Member who put his life on the line and lost his life, left his wife and three kids, young kids, because he was saving a young girl from his, her estranged father who had already killed another Member, their family. That's a hero's a hero.

Phillip campus is a hero. United States Marine Corps veteran, came back, joined the sheriff's office, became an elite SWAT team Member. A very young age taken from us. And so I think that the policy that we have now is that resources have to be raised, like, we have to continue to raise money for that sign to be replaced by Caltrans every, I think, eight years so that the sign remains in good condition. And I don't, I am unaware, I guess, question of the author. Where is through the chair? Question of the author.

Will the author take a question? I'll take that as a yes. Okay, terrific.

So just curious, where are the resources coming from that are going to go in this special Fund that CalTrans will administer? Where do those resources come from?

I'm sorry, Mister President, I can't hear. There's a little drilling in the background, which.

Are you doing that on purpose? Where do the resources come from that go into the Caltrans Fund to distribute?

Under this Bill? It sets up a Fund that would accept donations from interested parties to be able to do that. And it would still leave the designation of any structure to this body as through the traditional process. But it would allow for a funding mechanism because right now there's generally established sources for those, certain of those that are done, and this would make sure there's a funding source for everybody.

Senator Grove, on your time. Go ahead.

Thank you. So I guess my understanding is that the funding mechanism now is for individuals to donate to support these projects that they would like to have honored. If there's already a way to make sure that individuals have the opportunity to donate to these projects, I don't see how the Bill is necessary so that it could actually set up a Fund so people could donate to these projects. These projects are put on all over the state.

I just shared one that we did last year for Senate or two years ago for Senate for, excuse me, SWAT team Member, campus. And so just respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, I rise in support of the Bill. I hope that the result of it is that some more things get named after women. I happen to have done asked our transportation Committee to do a little number crunching for me, and in the past, is it 10 years?

And I'm sure if we did it over a 20 year period, this percent would be even lower. In the past 10 years, the percent of things, roads or highways that the Legislature has named after Omen is less than 7%. If we were to add up and do number crunching on anything that we named, it would even be lower.

And I basically, with no disrespect to the men that we may have named something after, I stopped voting on all of the bills that named something after a man because I felt that before I die, there would be no public space left to name anything after a woman.

And I think that the importance of this is that it does cost money to name and usually, and this is, again, with no disrespect to naming any of our highways after an officer who died in duty, in the line of duty. But oftentimes it is the union of that officer that will pay the costs for the naming of the roadway or highway.

And that as there are less women in sworn officers, and clearly, we should not only be naming things after people that die in the line of duty, since we don't even want anyone to be dying in the line of duty, but rather if we are naming roadways or highways after folks, it is less likely that a woman that we might suggest would have an entity like a labor union or others that is going to cover the costs, which is why such a Fund would be helpful.

But I think the key point is that we should be aware of the dearth of our naming public spaces after women, and we should do better. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner, Senator Dahle, thank you. Author, take a question.

I would like to get some clarification on the. I saw this in transportation. I was under the assumption that it was going to be taxpayer funded. But what I'm hearing you say, and I just want for the record to be clear, that this is people donating into the Fund, and that Fund would be used, then for the people that don't have resources, such as law enforcement and the likes. I will be supporting your Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Dahle, any further discussion or debate? Members seeing none, all debate having ceased. Senator Laird, you may close.

Thank you. I really appreciate the debate. And the Senator from Berkeley, I think, did a lot of what I would have done in a close. Let me just make one comment, which is, I think there was some confusion in the Committee over the fact that there are many, many highways and transportation structures named after people that are not fallen officers.

And if you look, there are a number, and I, just sitting here at my desk, pulled out the names of the following Legislature legislators. Achajian, Mello, Johnson, Belotti, Boatwright, Sturgeon, Ferran, Brown, Gibson, Miller, Nejidly. That were all Members, many of them Members of this body, were Members of the Legislature that were named.

And I remind everyone, there was not a woman elected to this body until 1976. So if we were naming roads after Senators, we were not. Disproportionately, we were totally naming them after men. And so this is my much broader than fallen officers, which, as I said in my opening statement, will still happen and will still happen as appropriate, with the exact deference that is deserved in the statement of the Senator from Bakersfield.

This just makes sure there's equity across the board over time in what we do with our designations that reflects the population of the people of California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Laird, the debate has closed. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members. On a vote of 32 to six, the measure carries. The measure passes. All right, Members, we were going to begin next with file item 81.

We do not have a floor analysis out on that, so we're going to defer that for the moment and instead move to two other bills by Senator Wiener. First, file item 62, followed by file item 63. File item 62 is Senate Bill 961. Senator Wiener is prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 961 by Senator Wiener, an act relating to vehicles.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Colleagues, SB 961 is a bill designed to make our roads safer and to make people more aware of speeding and to reduce speeds. Specifically, SB 961 will require new cars manufactured or sold in California to employ an existing technology.

It already exists to notify drivers if they go more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. Just to be clear, the original version of this bill would have physically prevented people from driving more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. The version before you notifies people.

Research has shown that this does have an impact in getting people to slow down. Particularly since some people drive over, don't even realize how fast their car is going. Colleagues, we know that 4,000 people a year die on California roads. Speed is a significant contributing factor. And we have technology that will help get people to slow down. It will save lives. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Any discussion or debate? Members, any discussion or debate on this Bill? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

We're going to go through the role one more time. Secretary, please call the absence members.

Allen. Archuleta. Bradford. Dodd. Mcguire. Roth. Rubio.

Senator Wiener moves to call. We're gonna move next to file item 63. This is Senate Bill 1037, also by Senator Wiener. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1037 by Senator Wiener. An act relating to housing.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mister President. Colleagues. SB 1037 is a measure that is sponsored by our Attorney General. As you know, we have worked very hard in recent years to enable the construction of the many, many new homes that California needs.

We need to make sure that the laws that we pass as a Legislature are actually being followed and enforced. There is a loophole in the law right now where cities can flagrantly violate state housing laws, simply blow them off and refuse to follow them.

And if the Attorney General files a lawsuit against those cities, takes it all the way through litigation and prevails, and wins a court judgment, there is no penalty against that city unless they wait many more months before coming into compliance. So a city has very little incentive, other than paying attorneys fees to actually follow the law.

SB 1037 will provide that if a city, if the Attorney General sues a city, goes all the way through litigation and wins, then the court can impose penalties on the city.

Those fines, those penalties will be placed, held in escrow for that city, for affordable housing in that city, so they're not taken into the General Fund or anything like that. This is a good government measure, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mister President, Members, I respectfully rise in opposition. And this is, I think, one of the fundamental problems with California and the Legislature thinking that if you sue some city, they're going to be able to do the right thing. Well, first off, developers build houses, not cities or counties.

And the reason developers don't build houses is because we have a process in California that is so cumbersome and so expensive and so risky. We have CEQA, we have all these design build, we have labor agreements, you name it, to build a home, even if it's low income.

And so now the Attorney General is going to go and sue these cities. Again, cities don't build houses, developers do. If we would reduce some of the burdens in California, we could build houses in California, but we continue to increase the cost of housing in California. And quite simply, cities and counties don't build houses.

Why are you suing them? Because they can't meet their element. They do a general plan. They say, here's where we're going to build the houses, and if somebody doesn't come and invest and build the houses, we're going to sue them. What's that going to do? It's going to do nothing but just cause litigation.

At the end of the day, we need to drive down the cost of housing by reducing the environmental impacts, the cost of building houses and allow developers to build houses in California. For those reasons, I oppose SB 1037.

Further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Wiener, you may close.

Yeah, I just thank my colleague across the aisle for those comments. And I agree. The cities are not the ones, sometimes they do, but typically are not the ones building housing.

But what this Bill is about is when cities refuse to grant permits to developers who are ready to build housing and are entitled to those permits under state law, and the city says, we're not going to give you the permit to do it.

So, yes, city's not the one building the housing, but the city has the power to obstruct developers from building those homes. And that's what this Bill is about, when cities are actually obstructing the ability of people to build new homes.

And I want to also stress that this only applies when the Attorney General has taken the extraordinary step of suing a city and when the city has acted arbitrarily or capriciously. This is not about honest mistakes or someone messes up the paperwork.

This is when a city has arbitrarily and capriciously refused to, to do something that they're required to do under state law. After, no doubt being told many times, this is what you have to do. They're sued. It goes all the way through the litigation. Judgment is entered.

There should be a consequence, and the consequence is that you pay a fine that then gets held in escrow for you as a city to be able to build affordable housing. This is a good Bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, no. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, no. Hurtado, aye. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon. McGuire. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman. Nguyen, no. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, no. Padilla, aye. Portantino. Roth, aye Rubio. Seyarto, no. Skinner, aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, no.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Becker. Glazer. Limon. McGuire. Newman. Portantino. Rubio. Umberg, aye.

Senator Wiener moves a call.

Members, we're going to now move to file item 81, also by Senator Wiener. This is SB 957. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 957 by Senator Wiener. An act relating to data collection.

Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister President. Colleagues, if this seems familiar, it's because many of you have voted, sometimes repeatedly, to require the California Department of Public Health to collect health data around based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

For anyone who accesses the healthcare system and fills out forms, you'll know that it will ask you voluntary questions about what is your age, what is your gender, what is your race? You don't have to provide that information, but most people do, and it allows us to gather important health data relating to different communities.

It's the reason why we knew that when Covid-19 hit, that older people were at much greater risk of dying than younger people. Unfortunately, overwhelmingly, healthcare providers are not asking the question about sexual orientation and gender identity. And so, we don't have that data.

And we know, based on other data that we have, that we believe that there are some significant health disparities impacting LGBTQ people, but we don't have that coming from our healthcare system in the way that it should. In 2020, we required the Department of Public Health to do more.

We then had the State Auditor do an audit which showed that the Department of Public Health was falling short and on the large majority of its forms, was not even asking the question. This Bill will require the Department of Public Health to implement the State Auditor's recommendations. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Any discussion or debate on this issue? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

On a vote of 30 to eight, the measure passes. Members, we're going to lift the call on file item 62. We're going to lift the call on file item 62. This is SB 961 by Senator Wiener. Secretary, please open the roll for absent Members.

[Roll call].

On a vote of 21 to 13, the measure passes. Can we get a clarification on the last measure? Senator Rubio, did you vote on that last measure? What was your vote? Aye. Okay. Properly recorded. Thank you. So that would be a vote of. Rubio? Aye. That would be a vote of 22 to 13. The measure passes. Thank you. We're going to move next to file item 82. This is Senate Bill 983 by Senator Wahab.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 983 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to energy.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I rise to present SB 983, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Task Force. My ultimate vision is to put alternative fuel options in gas stations to allow for all Californians to be able to use a clean vehicle, even those that don't have access to charging stations.

This task force will determine the fastest and most cost effective path forward for zero emission fuel alternatives while using our existing gasoline infrastructure without putting the finger on the scales or being short sighted regarding technologies of the future. Current investments into alternative fueling infrastructures are only half of what is needed to transition by 2050 or earlier. SB 983 is a crucial step to meet Governor Newsom's mandate to transition vehicles to zero emission sources by 2035. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this measure? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll call].

All right, on a vote of 31 to zero, the measure passes. We're going to move now to file item 83. This is Senate Bill 999 by Senator Cortese. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 999 by Senator Cortese. An act relating to health care coverage.

Thank you, Mister President. Colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 999. SB 999 will ensure that Californians suffering from mental health and substance use disorders either or can access the level of treatment necessary for a full and lasting recovery.

This Bill requires that utilization review determinations for mental health and substance abuse disorders are performed by a reviewer with appropriate training and relevant experience in the clinical specialty. SB 999 requires reviewers to disclose their name, credentials, and basis for a treatment denial, including a citation of the clinical guidelines that were followed.

This Bill will save lives by combating overdose deaths and suicides. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any discussion on this measure, Members? Any discussion? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

On a vote of 30 to seven, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 84. This is Senate Bill 1022 by Senator Skinner.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1022 by Senator Skinner, an act relating to civil rights.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members. SB 1022 provides our Department of our Civil Rights Department the time needed to effectively investigate and respond to systemic discrimination in workplaces or housing. When I say systemic, I mean multiple complaints over a multiple time period. The Civil Rights Department investigates thousands of these violations annually, and they mediate and settle many cases.

But there are some complaints, these ones we're referencing as systemic, that can come from multiple parties against the same entity over a period of time. And such complaints, once they begin to be investigated as a group, are referred to as directors complaints, and they can be complex and require additional time to investigate.

SB 1022 addresses this circumstance by giving the Department the ability to investigate the director's complaints over no more than a seven year time period. Note that SB 1022 does not change any statute of limitations. So if an individual wants to file a lawsuit about a complaint that they made, the statute of limitation holds.

It does not change any statute of limitations. It purely gives the Office of Civil Rights the ability to investigate these directors complaints or systemic violations over no more than a seven year time period.

It additionally gives the Department time to negotiate and reach settlements rather than only pursuing lawsuits, because under current law, they would have to initiate a lawsuit in just one year.

So if part of our objective is to lessen the number of lawsuits, then giving them more time to investigate and to work with the entities for whom the complaints have been lodged to try to work out agreements, then we will have less lawsuits. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Any debate on this measure? Any debate, Members? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 29 to nine, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 85, followed by file item 88 and 89. File item 85 is SB 1045 by Senator Blakespear.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1045 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to composting.

Senator Blakespear.

Thank you, President and colleagues. I rise to present SB 1045, which requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop a model ordinance for siting compost facilities and requires locals to consider this advisory. Developing this much-needed organic waste infrastructure is critical in having us meet our SB 1383 targets, which we are far from achieving.

In order to meet these targets, CalRecycle estimates that the state needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities. Right now, it's important to provide the needed tools to local governments to be successful.

A model ordinance will save time and the need for local governments to start from scratch in an area where many lack expertise. This Bill is supported by great organizations like Californians against Waste, League of California Cities, RCRC, Republic Services, Waste Management and more. There is no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear. Any discussion on this measure? Any discussion? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Senator Blakespear moves the call and move on to file item 88. This is SB 1066.

Secretary, please read.