Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Sorry for the tardiness. Welcome to the August 7, 2024 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 295 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing - it's riveting - from its live stream on the Assembly's website, assembly.ca.gov forward slash today's events.

We encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates. We will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the bill. The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door. I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules.

Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of general courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I would like to establish a quorum. I believe we have one.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a quorum. First order of business, I want to move SB 1211 to the suspense calendar. Next, I want to take up the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Please call roll.

The following bills are Senate bills for the consent calendar: 56 Skinner, 285 Allen, 370 Gonzalez, 552 Newman, 577 Hurtado, 639 Limón, 939 Umberg, 963 Ashby, 1006 Padilla, 1091 Menjivar, 1111 Min, 1117 Laird, 1155 Hurtado, 1156 Hurtado, 1158 Archuleta, 1168 Limón, 1186 Ochoa Bogh, 1195 Limón, 1217 Glazer, 1223 Becker, 1240 Alvarado-Gil, 1271 Min, 1290 Roth, 1301 Stern, 1313 Ashby, 1317 Wahab, 1333 Eggman, 1335 Archuleta, 1342 Atkins, 1369 Limón, 1394 Min, 1411 Ochoa Bogh, 1440 Laird, 1468 Ochoa Bogh, 1489 McGuire, 1493 Blakespear, and 1528 Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Consent vote. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar's adopted. We'll let folks add on. Let's now go to bills being presented to the committee. I know we have my counterpart, Senator Caballero, up first today, and she is presenting SB 366. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 366 today, which sets ambitious water supply targets for the state and modernizes the California Water Plan, the state's key water management planning document. Ensuring sufficient water for the future could not come at a more critical time.

The Department of Water Resources published an analysis recently that indicated the State Water Project will lose 23 percent of its water supply over the next 20 years due to climate change, and recent UC research has found that there will be a loss of up to nine million acre feet of water throughout the state by 2050.

And other research indicates that somewhere between half a million to a million acres of ag land will have to be put out of production because we don't have water for agriculture, and it's right in the middle of my district, so it's of utmost concern in rural California.

I've worked with the Department of Water Resources on significant amendments to reduce costs and address their concerns, which we have shared with the committee. The Water Board has also listed significant costs for the implementation of the bill.

However, the provisions of the bill fall under the sole purview of the Department of Water Resources and only requires coordination with the Water Board. And finally, the Water Board has proposed amendments, technical amendments, recently, as of this last week, and we are currently reviewing which would significantly reduce cost.

We're working to address cost concerns and urge your support of the bill, and with me here to testify is Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance.

Thank you. Good morning. Dawn Koepke with the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, a proud co-sponsor, strong supporter of SB 366. As the Senator articulated, SB 366 seeks to modernize the California Water Plan to make it just that, an actual plan, rather than merely an important glossary and encyclopedia of important water-related information.

CEEB, in conjunction with our colleague co-sponsors, the California Municipal Utilities Association and California State Association of Counties, have worked diligently over the course of the last number of months with the author, the committee, Department of Water Resources, State Water Board, and CalEPA to seek opportunities, ways to mitigate some of the cost impacts, and certainly are hopeful that our most recent conversations, specifically with the State Water Board and CalEPA, per the amendments the Senator referenced, will help to address the cost concerns.

With that, we would also just echo again, the primary agency responsible for this work of modernizing and updating is Department of Water Resources, and so do believe that those should be helpful. With that, happy to answer any questions. Appreciate the committee's support at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, please name, organization, and position.

Morning, Chair and Members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs, on behalf of Western Municipal Water District and Mojave Water Agency, in support.

Oh, yeah. Let's hold on MeToos then we'll come do opposition. And you'll have two minutes.

Okay. Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee. From a fiscal perspective, the most expensive part of this bill is also the part that we object to the most, and that is the setting of the targets and the work necessary to support that. These provisions are bad fiscal policy and they're bad water policy.

We're also concerned that in the effort for the author to reduce the cost of the bill, that they're going, instead of reducing the costs associated with establishing the targets, that they instead are going to delete other provisions, such as water necessary to sustain public trust resources, minimizing the need to import water from other hydrologic regions and to support sustainable economy and environment.

These things are much less expensive than the setting of the targets and are the few provisions in the bill that actually support environmental values. And finally, there's no need to pass the bill this year. The next update of the Water Plan isn't due until December 31st, 19--I mean 2028. To the extent a bill is necessary to adjust the Water Plan, there is plenty of time in the next session to do it properly. Thank you.

Thank you. And we actually have a Department of Finance also. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Wicks. Good morning, Appropriations Committee Members and staff. Millie Yan with Department of Finance. Finance is opposed to this bill. The Department of Water Resources estimates an annual cost of an additional two million dollars General Fund, which is ten million dollars over the five-year Water Plan update cycle.

This money is to expand investigations and modeling the state's ten hydraulic regions. These costs include workload associated with cost benefit analyses, interim annual reports, and conducting a study to set targets that meet all needs. The State Water Board estimates costs of 4,275,000 annually ongoing for their workload.

And while the California Water Commission and California Natural Resources Agency estimate costs to be minor and absorbable, we note that the bill also creates additional General Fund cost pressures for implementing and potentially financing outcomes of the plan. So any requests for additional resources would be evaluated during the annual budget process.

Thank you. We can now go to our MeToos. I appreciate how organized you all are. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, Kings River Interests, Modesto Irrigation District, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, in support.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Corona and Santa Rosa, in support.

Pilar Onate-Quintana, here for the Irvine Ranch Water District, in support.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, in support.

Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, co-sponsor, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Don Gilbert for the California Municipal Utilities Association, a co-sponsor of the bill, in support.

Good morning. Jaime Minor, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, Turlock Irrigation District, and West Basin Municipal Water District, in support. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the Rancho California Water District, also in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Valley Water, in support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in support.

Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association, in support.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, Mesa Water, and a host of agricultural entities, including the California Seed Association, California Grain and Feed, and others. Thank you. In support.

Good morning. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Water Reuse California, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, in support. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt, here with Nossaman, here on behalf of Olivenhain Municipal Water District, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, in support of the following organizations: United Ag, Western Plant Health Association, California Fresh Fruit Association, Grower-Shipper Association, Walnut, Apple, and Blueberry Commission, California Cotton Growers, and Western Ag Processors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies, in support.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Now is your moment. Okay, we will bring it back to committee. Any questions for the author? Would you like to close? Oh, we have a question here. Mr. Patterson.

My understanding is that you're attempting to bring those costs down so that it passes the Appropriations test. How likely is that, and when do you think that will take place?

So here's the challenge is that some of the highest costs are for the organizations that have the least amount to do in regards to the bill. There's no question that it's going to cost, but we're in the process of passing or working on a climate change bill, part of which deals with water.

How do you figure out what the priorities for water are if you don't have a plan? And part of that is to understand what is it going to cost in the long-term to make sure we have potable water for every part of the state? Two-thirds of the state has water imported from it.

That's the bottom line. So two-thirds of Californians receive some water from the delta, and the delta is in failure, and we've known that for a period of time. So as climate change ravages the state with 100 plus temperatures for days on end, we use more water. And so we need a water plan.

And we need to figure out how we can get off our over-reliance on the delta and come up with regional solutions to how we can ensure that we have enough water for everyone in the state as we move to 2040 and 2050. So we're working on trying to make the cost more reasonable.

And some of the things that will come out of the bill are things that will reduce costs, but we feel very confident that this is something we absolutely need because we don't want to end up in a crisis where we have no water--ability to provide water, and I have a bunch of communities in my district right now who don't have potable water, and so they're trucking it in.

That's not sustainable and it should not happen in other parts of the state as well. So we're working as diligently as we can to bring some of these costs down and some of it is just resistance to having to do the work if the bill gets through and the Governor signs it.

I appreciate the effort, and with due respect to Finance, this is something, regardless of the price tag, get it reduced to some manner, but I really think that we've got to be willing to say something as important as this: even if it has a price tag, is something we've got to do, not just for the--I have communities that are in difficulty, but I have ag fallowing--I could fallow a million acres in Central California, and so here we are with the underground--

Storage capacity?

Yeah. We're pumping it out and our ag people have to put it back in, but they're not given the surface water to put it back in. And University of California at Berkeley, their Water Institute did a thorough economic analysis of it, and it is gut-wrenching. I mean, unemployment rates that will double in these smaller towns, a million acre feet. Now, one caveat to all of this is, I think--and there's agriculture here. I think the genius of agriculture over the years has been their ability to adapt. And, I don't know, I think--didn't you author the bill with respect to the Agave? Didn't you?

I did some work on that. I didn't author it.

Yeah, the Wolf Family asked me to co-author it, and we did that. That's an indication they want to have that as an option. In fact, they're doing experimentals right now in my district with different varietals. And so we're going to have a California agave market. Now, we can't call it tequila, right?

So we've been testing out, and I don't know whether this is something a bit too corny or a bit too close. So Stuart Wolf and I were brainstorming about this. How about if we call it Tacqcali? T-A-C-Q-C-A-L-I? Think we can do that?

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Do you have any closing comments?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote when it's appropriate.

So we're moving this bill off onto the suspense file. Thank you for presenting.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll have Senator Portantino up, and you are presenting SB 691. You're very colorfully, patriotically addressed today, too. The Olympics. Yes. Did you guys catch the 1500 last night? That was pretty amazing. Turn your mic on, please, sir.

I was going to say, and the women's soccer yesterday was pretty amazing as well. Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may proceed. SB 691 addresses threatening language related to student truancy. There's a body of evidence that says when we actually provide pertinent information and don't try to criminalize parents, we actually get more kids in seats.

As evidence being a do pass by believe recommendation, the fiscal cost is minimal and absorbable. And we did remove the additional Members of the State Board of Education, which would have increased costs. So that whole section one has been, it will be taken out when this bill gets off of suspense. And with me, I have Sebastian Barnet, a high school student, to say a few brief words, if I may.

Please, feel free. You'll have two minutes.

Hello, I'm Sebastian Barnet. I'm a high schooler from Senator Portantino's district. And I strongly agree with this bill because I think it would help our state's children, as well as the fact that there's practically no financial burden to this legislation. So I strongly support it.

Great. Do we have Department of Finance?

Actually, no file on this bill.

Okay, great. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room like to express their support or opposition to the bill? Okay, we will bring it back to Committee. Any questions for the author? We have a... Oh. Oh. Do you accept the amendments?

I do. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Great. We have a motion and a second. And would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. That is do pass as amended. It's out on a B roll call with Mr. Patterson and Ta not voting. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Bradford, who is not here. Okay. And Senator Grove, who is not here. And Senator Dodd, it's your lucky day. Oh, sorry, Mr. Bradford. You were about 20 seconds too late. Mr. Dodd will be quick, I'm sure. That was right under the wire. You may begin.

Let's go. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Today, I'm presenting SB 1379. This is a district bill to temporarily waive the 960 hours limit for retired annuitants working for the Solano County Sheriff to address critical staffing needs in Vallejo, City of Vallejo. The bill will sunset in three years.

The Vallejo City Council declared a state of emergency last year due to 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 in Vallejo, and this bill is essential to assist them with responding to these calls. The bill requires the County of Solano pay a $200 administration fee per retiree per month with a maximum of 20 officers.

This will help CalPERS system with the system enhancement costs. Given Vallejo's immediate public safety needs, the city can't afford to wait for more officers to be trained. Without this bill, the Solano County Sheriff won't be able to respond to calls in Vallejo. With me today is Corey Salzillo with this California State Sheriff's Association. This bill has local support and no recorded opposition. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, happy to be here in support of this bill. As the author said, it addresses a critical public safety need by allowing retired annuitants working for the Solano County Sheriff's Office to exceed the 960 hours time limit under very specific and limited conditions and for a temporary time period.

The author and sponsors have taken significant amendments to address any concerns as well as to minimize any potential fiscal impact to the state. We're grateful to the author and the community and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance.

Thank you. Finance is neutral on this bill. CalPERS reports that the bill will result in a one time $100,000 administrative cost for system enhancements to receive reporting of appointments and track monthly administrative payments. At the local level, this bill could cost Solano County up to $48,000 annually for the administrative charges for 20 retired employees, and this amount would partially offset the one time CalPERS costs.

The administrative charge is not anticipated to be a state reimbursable mandate because the county is not required to hire retired employees. Appointments are at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, and benefit costs for the county would not be affected as there would not be a retirement employer contribution for these retired employees. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring back to Committee. Any questions for the author? We have a motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close? Great. It's a do pass recommendation, it's out on an A roll call. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. And Mr. Bradford, you are up.

I believe you have three bills you are presenting, SB 1075, SB 1109, and SB 1177.

SB 1075, which will establish the basic consumer protections for Californians who are members of a state chartered credit union. 1075 will create a new and necessary safeguards from overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees by capping those fees at $14 or amount set by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whichever is lower, starting in January 2026.

This bill requires the credit unions to notify members when an overdraft or non-sufficient fund fee is being charged to their account by no later than one the next business day. This bill has no opposition and will have minor and absorbable costs by the Department of Financial Protections. And I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition?

Good morning. Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, as well as the National Consumer Law Center in support.

Thank you. Any questions from Committee Members? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. It's a do pass recommendation out on an A roll call.

Thank you.

And next up...

Next up is SB 1109. It's a straightforward measure that requires the Department of Cannabis Control to collect and report demographic information of cannabis licensees. This information will be voluntary, provided by the cannabis licensees.

As we know, this industry is a little over seven years in existence, but it's lacking real diversity, which is leading to some of our challenges. SB 1109 will help provide necessary transparency about California's cannabis industry, and the costs are minor and observable. And I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Primary witnesses in opposition. Any additional folks in the room support opposition, bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Second. Mister Haney. No questions. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. This is do pass. Enjoys a do passs recommendation is out on an A roll call with Mister Ta not voting. And your last Bill, SB 1177.

1177.

1177 updates California Utility Supplier Diversity Law to better understand the spend concentration and foster a more diverse workforce. General Order 156 was established almost 40 years ago by the late Assembly Member Gwen Moore to add diversity with contract and procurement with our utilities.

When this bill was introduced 40 years ago, utilities were spending maybe a half a million dollars--I mean--yeah, a half a million dollars, about $500,000 with minority contractors. Today, the spend is 19 billion, but the numbers of diverse companies haven't really grown, so it requires large utilities to include information of a number of contractors and subcontractors that they do business with, as well as the total value of these contracts.

This bill requires the data to be submitted on how much of the work being performed is done in California, and encourages utility businesses to file diversity, equity, and inclusion plans. And has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support or opposition? Nothing from DOF, I take it? Okay. And any, any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a B roll call with Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ta not voting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Next, we have Senator Menjivar. Oh. We have Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Chair and members. Arguably, this is a cleanup bill to a conflict of interest bill that was passed by you a year ago. I have a common cause here to answer any questions that members may have. And with that, respectfully asked for an aye vote.

There we go. In support of SB 1181, would you like me to restate my name, for the record, or. Okay. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of California Common Cause, in support of SB 1181, this bill will substantially ease the burden on local elected officials and stakeholders and better focus the enforcement of the Levine Act. Not Levine.

Miss Pellerin will get me in trouble, on limiting the most dangerous opportunities for special interests. This will be accomplished with little to no costs. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to. Sorry. Any primary witnesses in opposition. Any additional folks wish to express support. Express opposition? Up to the mic for me toos. Name, organization and position, please.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in opposition. Thank you.

Great. And any questions from committee members? Do we have a motion? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay, great. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a roll call with Mister Patterson not voting. We have Senator Grove now. And I know you are presenting SB 1043 and SB 1414.

Yes, Madam Chair. Do you have a preference of what I do first?

No. You pick.

Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Today, I'm here to present SB 1043, the Accountability and Children's Treatment Act, which would create more transparency surrounding the use of restraint and seclusion rooms at short term residential therapeutic programs, also known as STRTPs. I'd like to first acknowledge and thank the sponsor of SB 1043, CEO of 11:11 Media Impact, Paris Hilton. She's a survivor of the troubled teen industry and has been directly impacted by the improper use of seclusions and restraints.

Paris was sent to multiple facilities and was physically and sexually and psychologically abused. She has turned her survival story into a catalyst for change and sponsored legislation across the nation aimed at reforming the troubled teen industry and protecting children and our youth from abuse. Some of California's most vulnerable children are housed in STRTPs, including former foster youth that have been previously sexually exploited.

With this knowledge, we must require the highest level of transparency and accountability and care for this vulnerable population. Zoe, who testified in the Public Policy Committee hearing, was restrained and tied down for 20 hours for refusing to eat a pad of butter. Another individual in this room today was housed in a dog cage for a lengthy timeframe.

These are children that are in the state's care, custody, and control. SB 1043 is a simple transparency measure that would require CDSS to display on its website data regarding the use of restraints and seclusion rooms in STRTPs and requires them to conduct an investigation each time restraints, restraints and seclusions are used.

This bill was amended and strengthened thanks to Assembly Member Lee in the Assembly Human Services Committee to now include an officer for the foster care ombudsman to act as an advocate for the youth who have been restrained and secluded in collecting their statements and including that in a report of the incident.

After further discussions and for practical purposes, I've submitted amendments to this Committee to increase the length of time the ombudsman person has the opportunity to get these statements from seven days to 14 days. The Department of Social Services has been instructed through statute to make restraint and seclusions available to the public.

However, they have failed to do so for the last seven years since the creation of STRTPs. Unfortunately, this information wasn't published when we had a budget surplus, and now we have a budget deficit, and I don't want that to be the reason that we continue not to make this information available to the public. This is implementing a crucial children's protection measure. The health and safety of our children under the state's care should be a top priority regardless of the cost.

I've had several conversations with the Department regarding the original cost of the bill to try to understand the unbelievably high estimate to publish data that CDSS already is collecting on the same form. And after every meeting I'm left with more questions. Dashboards and existing websites through other state agencies have been a lower cost associated with implementation and maintenance.

I've encouraged the Department to seek out support from other state agencies and learn how they have lowered their cost associated with adding a new section, again, to the existing website that already displays other data that's pertinent to the public from the same reports that are filed, Members, this measure, the Accountability for Children's Treatment, is just that, a simple transparency measure caring for our youth.

We are asking CDSS to publish data in the public square so that they can ensure the highest level of oversight when it comes to caring for our most vulnerable children. California has already invested millions of dollars to bring our youth housed in out of state facilities back to California because abusive practices were exposed.

It only makes sense to ensure that the transparency and accountability as it relates to their care here in California is available to the public and we make sure that our children are safe. We are all parents somehow, in some way, of these foster children that are in the state's care, custody, and control, and it's our responsibility to make sure they're safe. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in support?

Chelsea Filer of the Institutional Child Abuse Prevention and Advocacy Network. Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes.

Strongly in support of this bill. As a survivor of institutional child abuse and where I was held in a dog cage, subject to violent restraint, and starved, beaten, and burned in one of these programs, I have to say this issue is far more dire than the state knows, and that is why proper reporting is extremely important. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support?

Hi, my name is Natalie Wills, on behalf of 11:11 Media. I am a survivor of sexual abuse as a child, which resulted in me becoming a runaway, which resulted in me being sent away and restrained unnecessarily in many ways. And SB 143 is going to increase the veracity that is needed to report unnecessary restraints, especially.

And make it less, I guess, make it easier for survivors like myself to come up and say our truth and have that in reporting, rather than a survivor coming in and having to basically go through the trauma of their story and having to repeat that to everybody. And the state is absolutely responsible for increasing the state of veracity. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Please name, organization, and position.

Michael Mendoza and here on behalf of Paris Hilton and 11:11 Media Impact, as well as the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in strong support.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express opposition me too? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions for the author? Okay, and this is for presentation only. The bill is being moved to the suspense file. Thank you for your presentation. Would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask that, you know, it be considered as far as the suspense calendar be released. These children desperately need our help.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay. And we will now move to SB 1414.

Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair, for meeting with me on both of these bills, but specifically SB 1414. SB 1414 is a bipartisan measure that's joint author by Senator Caballero and Senator Rubio, and once amended, will include 23 co authors.

The amendments I submitted to the Committee would make it a crime of soliciting or engaging in any act of commercial sex with a child if the defendant is an adult, a felony punishable in state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years and a fine not to exceed $25,000.

The amendment would also require a tier one sex registry for a second or subsequent offense without a 10 year age gap for the victim and the defendant, which is currently in the Bill.

The hostile amendments that were forced on me in Senate Public Safety, for instance, this example, a 20 year old man could purchase a 10 year old child in the State of California under the language, and he would not have to register as a sex offender.

However, if that same man purchased a nine year old child for sex, somehow it becomes a predator worthy of a sex offender registry. We're not talking about romantic relationships. We are talking about purchasing children for sex. Purchasing any child for sex, at any age, you are a predator. There's no age gap that's acceptable.

While I understand the primary focus of this Committee is to evaluate the fiscal impact of SB 1414, I want to make it very clear that there is no price tag that we can be placed on victims of sex trafficking, especially children.

Buying a child for sex is a crime so grotesque, immoral and barbaric it should be prevented and stopped at any cost. Additionally, there is often a lifetime of complex trauma to harm these children have when they are purchased and bought for sex, from psychological issues to physical ailments to housing needs and social services.

Oftentimes the state picks up the tabs for these survivors. Once a child is rescued from being sold for sex, the state is often responsible for caring for these children. The cost associated with rehabilitation far outweighs the incarceration of the perpetrators engaging in these crimes. To mention the lifelong trauma that these children will endure.

In calculating some of the basic funding for these victims, following some of the following, the following are some estimated cost associated with the rehabilitation of a child who's been bought and sold for sex. CalWORKS $9,348 a year, drug rehab $13,475 a year, mental health services estimated $8,500 a year, an ER visit $2,960 a year, which is a very, very conservative estimate, especially when you look at the brutality that these kids endure.

Criminal or California Victims Compensation Board support $10,000 a year, housing a rough estimate $13,870 a year provided us by Cast LA, one of the largest direct service providers in the State of California. And these are just basic services.

If a 13 year old is rescued from being bought and sold, it would require five years of services to be provided for the government at a minimum until they are an adult, which would be approximately $290,675 for their care while they're minors.

Just last week, 14 people were arrested and 10 victims were rescued in a human trafficking sting operation in San Diego at ComicCon Convention. The San Diego Human trafficking task force conducted a three day operation ahead of the weekend bust.

Attorney General Bonta said, quote, these arrests send a clear message to potential offenders that the criminal behavior will not be tolerated in California. End quote. I agree. Criminal behavior should not be tolerated and all capital, all children should be protected under this law. The word misdemeanor should not be in this language in any way, shape or form.

This should be a prison felony, and the original language should be restored as the amendments that are submitted to this Committee and have been submitted since the hostile takeover of the Bill.

The sad fact that we were forced to take the amendments on SB 1414, which excluded 16 and 17 year olds, that 16 year old arrest that was rescued in this operation in San Diego would not be subject to these additional protections.

Even under the current language of SB 1414, it's completely unacceptable that we would say that 16 and 17 year olds are adults in this situation. As California goes, so goes the nation. Last year, this Committee passed legislation addressing the selling of our children. Now we must address the other half of this crime, the buying of our children.

SB 1414 is the strongest statement that California can send that will make everyone aware that we are not ignoring child sex victims and that we are taking away the ability for perpetrators to get away with a slap on their wrist and making sure that they serve prison time.

Currently, abying a child for sex under current law can be charged as a misdemeanor with a minimum of two days in jail, and that is completely unacceptable specifically for the State of California. We have to do more to protect our children.

The original version of SB 1414 amendments in your possession again at this Committee, will restore this to a prison felony. Under the original. The language that you're looking at now, it's a wobbler. I have to tell you that the wobbler will still work. I would like to be a prison felony across the State of California.

The wobbler still works because in my district, my district attorneys will file charges against those individuals that buy children for sex and make it a felony. But the blade down in Los Angeles, I doubt very seriously that the District Attorney will file those charges. We need to protect all children in the State of California of all ages.

I'm honored to have Three Strands Global Foundation, Love Never Fails as the co-sponsors of SB 1414, this measure is overwhelmingly supported by over 100 statewide and national organizations such as the National Center on Missing and Exploited Children and exodus cry respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll go to primary witnesses in support. Are there primary witnesses in support?

Natalie Wills with ICAPA in support

Chelsea Filer with ICAPA Network in support.

Okay. And any primary witnesses in opposition? We'll go to Department of Finance.

Thank you. While we appreciate the intent behind the Bill, Department of Finance is opposed to it because of CDCR potential costs. California has successfully remained below the court ordered prison population, cap and has even made strides towards closing prisons, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of annual savings.

However, increases to the population threaten the state's ability to continue making progress in rightsizing California's prison system. The state strives to have a balanced system that preserves public safety while remaining fiscally responsible.

The annual costs associated with increasing the prison population by one individual can range from around $10,000 to the high tens of thousands of dollars, depending on various factors, such as whether the aggregate increase impacts CDCR's ability to close housing units or entire prisons.

We also note that similar legislation that expands the list of individuals required to register as sex offenders has estimated to result in costs to the Department of Justice in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Name, position, organization.

Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the counties of Kern and Tulare, both in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions for the author? Would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair, I appreciate the opposition statement, but the bottom line is that you're paying roughly $290,000 in treatment for these individuals who the state is responsible for and for victim services.

And frankly, and I love the Department of Finance when they come up and speak about this, and their ability to be able to convey information that we need, I think is very important. But the bottom line is we're talking about those that are buying children for sex.

And if we can't lock those people up in prison, then we seriously have a problem, especially when the outcomes of making sure that these individuals are treated for the trauma that they endure is a higher cost than tens of thousands of dollars. It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And I think the offset or argument is irrelevant because it's less expensive to make sure that these children are not impacted versus caring for them after they're impacted and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

And this Bill was for presentation only. It'll be moved to the suspense file.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you again for meeting with me.

And next we have Senator Menjivar. You were so gracious to let Senator Glazer go ahead of you. Little did you know. And you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee Members, I'm here to present on SB 1193. It is looking to ban the sale of leaded aviation fuel in California starting in January 1st, 2031. All the amendments taken through this wonderful legislative process have completely eliminated all state costs. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. And do you have any primary witnesses in support?

I do.

My name is Jerett Yan. I'm a Deputy County Counsel with the County of Santa Clara. In 2023, the US EPA found that lead emissions from aviation gasoline endangered public health and safety.

This finding was based on a series of studies conducted at airports across the country, including Reid-Hillview Airport, which is a county-operated airport in San Jose that demonstrated that lead emissions from avgas increased blood levels of children in the surrounding neighborhoods. There are unleaded alternatives available today.

Since January of 2022, the county has operated both of its airports without the sale of leaded avgas. We sell hundreds of thousands of gallons of unleaded avgas every year, and our actions have prevented more than a ton of lead from being emitted into the environment.

We understand that there are unleaded aviation gasolines approved by the FAA for use in virtually every airplane in the general aviation fleet that is available for delivery to any airport in California and the producers are confident that they can supply the entire state's market long before 2031. We've worked hard to produce a bill that has no cost to the state, and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional primary witnesses? Any primary opposition? Okay, we'll bring it to MeToos. Name, position, and organization.

Hello. Good morning. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and also on behalf of the California League of United Latin American Citizens, proud co-sponsors of SB 1193, in strong support.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa. I've been asked to testify on support of a co-sponsor: the Coalition of Clean Air. Thank you.

Good morning. Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District, in support.

Wes Donnelly with CleanEarth4Kids.org in support, along with FACTS, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA, CEH, the Center for Environmental Health, Moms Advocating Sustainability, YardSmartMarin, Sonoma, SASS, Beyond Pesticides, Grandparents Taking Action, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee, and SD-SEQUEL. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions from members? We have a motion and a second and a question by Mr. Patterson.

All right. I'm a private pilot. I have flown as a private pilot since I was 17, every single general aviation in my district, but also in a whole lot of other areas. Notwithstanding all of the testimony that it's out there and that it works. The reality is that it will not work in fuel-injected aircraft. Period.

It will not work. It will actually damage the airplane. Now, those airplanes are the larger single-engine airplanes. In fact, one of our agricultural leaders, John Harris, his personal pilot is a friend of mine. That airplane can't use the fuel.

I have heard from countless general aviation pilots that notwithstanding all of the hype, they are going to be forced to leave California, fill their airplanes up, and come back. I mean, this is--I mean, the general aviation community is--I mean, I don't know how many hundreds of millions--it could even be close to billions of economic importance to the State of California.

And I just, as somebody who knows airplanes inside and out, somebody who has friendships and associations with pilots up and down the State of California, this is concerning them very deeply. Now, I'm surprised that we--where's AOPA? Why aren't they here?

They're no longer opposed, Assembly Members.

What did you do to buy them off?

I didn't. That would be illegal, and I think that question is super disrespectful.

Mr. Patterson, that is extremely out of order--excuse me, Senator--

I worked really hard--

Mr. Patterson, that is out of order. Okay? That is not an appropriate way to talk to a Senator here. Okay, if you have a question, please ask it and please wrap up. Thank you.

Again, the point here is that this isn't going to work.

Okay. And do you have a question?

No, I--but--

Okay, thank you.

You need to hear from somebody that flies an airplane a lot that's going to have to leave the state.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. And, yes.

They're going to close down general aviation.

Excuse me. Thank you. Ms. Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for working really hard on this policy. I know that issues like this are really big to take on, and aligning it with federal regulations and what the federal government is doing is a step in the right direction. So I applaud your conviction as well as all of the advocates that have been supporting the policy and trying to get California into the right direction.

I want to, on behalf of my colleagues in the Assembly and those of us that believe in diplomatic discourse, even when we disagree that we thank you for your service to the state and for bringing this bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Do we have any other questions from members on the committee? Do we have a motion? Motion; a second. You may close. I want to say in advance of that, apologies on behalf of the Assembly Appropriations Committee for my colleague's remarks and would ask you to close here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I recognize one person's opinion does not represent the entire body of the Assembly, so thank you for that. I do want to say, in the months that I've worked on this, first I want to say that it came out of a district issue.

My airport in my district, one of three, is the second most polluting airport in California, the first one being in Long Beach, and it's actually the seventh most polluting airport in the United States. My community members are having--are getting lead in their blood, mostly our children, upwards of 21 percent of lead in their blood, and when I first introduced this bill, I had a longer list of opposition, but after months and months of working with opposition, pilots are no longer opposed to my bill.

Airports are no longer opposed to my bill because we worked to remove provisions from the bill that would make it easier for them to transition into unleaded fuel, which is one of the remaining things that have lead in their system.

We aligned, like the Assembly Member Carrillo mentioned, two federal processes where the federal right now has until December 31st, 2030 of the current law, which is why we're not going to impede or compete against the federal regulation, and we know that we are going to have entities have unleaded fuel ready to go.

GAMI already produced some version of unleaded fuel. We're just waiting to get to the 100 octane level and I know that in the next almost ten years or six years from now, we will have that ready to go. With that, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second and that enjoys a do pass recommendation. It is out on a B roll call with Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Dixon not voting. Thank you, Senator. And we are now going to Senator Gonzalez. You are up to present SB 1337.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I'm here to present SB 1337, which will provide greater transparency about the funders of referendum petitions that seek to overturn state law. This bill will require the top three funders to be listed directly on each signature page.

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. The Secretary of State's office who will implement these changes have reported that this bill has no fiscal impact.

And I have Terry Brennand here from the SEIU State Council to speak in support of the bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You may begin.

Madam Chair and members, Terry Brennand, on behalf of SEIU California. If you remember, last year we passed AB 421 by Assemblymember Bryan that dealt with referendum reform. It was very successful, but it only impacted what was on the ballot.

This is designed to address how things, how referendums get on the ballot and require a little bit more disclosure so that you can't, when you're gathering a signature, say that we're preserving neighborhoods and making it safe from oil industry.

When the top three funders are the oil companies, people have a little bit more information to discern, one, whether or not they want to sign it before it even gets to the ballot. For that reason, we ask for your aye vote and support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional primary witnesses and support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anything from DoF? Okay, we'll bring it back to the room. Anyone in the general public wish to express support or opposition? Okay, bring it back to committee. Any questions? A motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And that is enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a B roll call. Thank you. And next we have. We don't have Mister Wiener, Mister Archuleta. And you are presenting SB 1418.

This Bill is expected to have minimal or no cost to the state. Moreover, there are some costs for local cities and counties to comply with, and Senate Bill 1418 will not be punitive to them because it's not expensive.

The Bill phases in some requirements, so most cities and counties will not have to develop an ordinance until September of 2028. In closing, Senate Bill 1418 will bring clarity and efficiency to the zero emission vehicle permitting process and in turn, help California reach our climate goals. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses in support? No. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. 2nd. Great. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. That enjoys a dupass, recommendations out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon not or voting no. Thank you. Next we have Mister Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Which one would you like me to take up first?

Why don't we start with SB 937?

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. SB 937 temporarily extends housing entitlements and allows for delayed collection of impact fees for specified housing developments. SB 937 has no state costs and any local administrative costs. Cities are unknown, but likely minor.

This Bill is designed during a very high interest period of high interest rates where a lot of housing developments are potentially frozen to try to keep them alive and keep them moving forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and we're happy. My witness, Graciela Castillo Krings, will answer any technical questions that come up.

Thank you. Any additional primary witnesses?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, one of the Bill sponsors. At the end of the day, the Bill does not say no to fees. It simply changes when those fees are collected at the beginning of a project, that is when the financing is the most expensive.

And what we are seeking to do here is making sure that we are balancing the needs of local government while at the same time ensuring that the project is actually being constructed. We need deeply affordable, subsidized projects.

We also need market rate projects we just need to make sure that we're solving the housing crisis and we urge an aye vote on this Bill.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition, any folks in the room which express support or opposition, please step up to the mic. Name, organization and position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. We remain in opposition unless amended to the measure. It's not without a lot of work that's gone into it by the stakeholders, sponsors and authors, but we haven't been able to close the gap.

We still find that the measure shifts risk from the private sector to the local agencies, so we remain opposed. Thank you.

Any additional me toos on this Bill? Name, organization and position.

Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, Habitat for Humanity California, Field Senate associates, Eden housing and Sandhill properties, all in support.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, respectfully opposed unless amended.

Ali Sapirman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a proud co sponsor of this Bill in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions for the author? We have a motion a second. Would you like to close? Oh, sorry, Mister Grayson.

Just to clarify first of all, thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. We've done a lot of housing work over the years, the past few years, and this is one of those bills that will truly move the needle, I believe, co authoring it.

This does not include or have a mandate that all fees are deferred to the end. I think there's been a very fine balance. A lot of work, is that.

Yes, that's correct. And I want to thank not just the special districts, but all the local government groups for working with us intensively for a number of months now. We've made significant changes to the Bill in response to that feedback and yes. So right now, these fees are typically collected at issuance of permit upfront.

This would defer some, but not all of those fees to the end certificate of occupancy. It would not defer fees that are used for ongoing existing project. So if they're going to be collecting fees to use for infrastructure over the course of that project, this does not defer those fees.

It's fees that are going to be used in the future. And I think it's also really important to remember that when impact fees are collected and a project doesn't happen, those fees have to be refunded. So it's not like cities.

They should be, frankly, holding those fees in escrow, especially during a difficult economic times, regardless, because they're on the hook to refund them if the project falls apart. So this is a common sense Bill, and I appreciate it.

Thank you for that clarity.

Thank you. We have a motion a second. Would you like to close?

Senator, respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out. With Republicans not voting, with Miss Dixon voting no, and Mister Ta voting aye. Thank you. And now onto SB 961.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and colleagues. SB 961 is a bill designed to address the escalating number of people dying on California roads. More than 4000 Californians die every year on our roads. That number has been increasing in recent years, and speed is a major factor in one-third of those road deaths.

SB 961 requires a new cars, manufactured or sold in California starting in 2030 to employ existing technology that some manufacturers are already including in their vehicles to warn alert drivers when they are exceeding 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. It's a single warning.

We know that there are some people who are going to ignore it, but there are other people who don't even realize how fast they're driving. And this will be a useful reminder to slow down and save lives. The National Transportation Safety Board recommends this technology as a national standard, which hasn't happened.

And NTSB was actually our lead witness in Senate Transportation. AAA, the National Safety Council, and the American Academy of Pediatrics also support the bill. Respectfully asked for an aye vote. With me today in support is Jodi Medeiros, Executive Director of Walk San Francisco.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Wicks and committee members. My name is Jodie Medeiros, and I am the Executive Director of Walk San Francisco, and we are co-sponsors of SB 961.

I want to take a trip back to Wisconsin in 1961, and your state legislators. You have the chance to make Wisconsin the first state in the country to require automakers to install seatbelts in cars. If you vote no, you will delay saving lives from one of the most common sense, cost-effective public health interventions possible.

You vote yes. 60 years ago, Wisconsin lawmakers started a chain of events that led to federal law requiring seat belts in all vehicles. Almost every state has since passed laws requiring people to wear them. More than half a million lives have been saved since those Wisconsin lawmakers voted yes.

SB 961 is a chance for you to leave a legacy of saving lives in our roads and would cost California $0. SB 961 would require simple technology to alert drivers when they're going more than 10 miles over the speed limit. And drivers need this reminder. Modern cars accelerate 50% faster than they did 40 years ago.

And electric vehicles are even faster, with many getting to 60 mph in merely seconds. Vehicle technology is encouraging drivers to go way too fast. SB 961 really counteracts this. More than 1000 Californians die every year in speed related crashes. Tens of thousands more are injured. These are people in your district, people you love.

We're asking you for an aye vote today on SB 9611 of the most common sense, cost-effective public health interventions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion as well. A second? A second. Do we have a second? Yes. Okay, great. Great. Thank you very much for your primary testimony. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express support, please name, organization and position.

Wes Donnelly with cleanearthforkids.org in support, along with FACTS, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA, Grandparents Taking Action, North County Equity and Justice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee, and SD-SEQUEL.

Thank you. Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express opposition? Name, organization and position.

Hi, Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman. Respectfully oppose, unless amended to exclude motorcycles on behalf of the motorcycle council industry.

Madam Chair Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange in respectful opposition on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have a motion. And we have a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I will just note we are actually. We've had been in conversation with the motorcycle folks are talking to the policy committees about that. So that's a topic under discussion. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Any other questions from committee? Sorry, I did that out of order. Okay, great. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a B roll call with Miss Calderon not voting. Thank you. And next we have Senator Wahab. I believe you are up your lucky day. You just bypassed four Senators. And you are presenting SB 1357.

You may begin.

Thank you, Chair, colleagues, and members of the public. SB 1357 simply requires the Housing Authority of Alameda County, also known as HACA, to evaluate their website for consumer usability and develop an annual report of data and metrics that speak to the programs offered by HACA. Currently, if you go on their website, as well as even in their office, they're either closed or not as transparent as they need to be to the public. And housing is one of the most important things that we can provide the public.

We had an open dialogue with HACA to ensure that they are willing to comply with the reporting requirements. And they are. This bill is about data transparency, accessibility, and good governance. The fiscal impact is minimal. Additionally, since introducing this bill, HACA has began to work on some of these provisions. However, we want to ensure that this work continues, which is why I'm still advancing the bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And are there any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Do we have a motion? Motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Great. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Great. This enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on an A roll call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Allen, you are up next. And Mr. Allen, you are presenting SB 1441?

That's right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this Bill would provide clear timelines in the election petition review process and help our local governments handle costs from added workload. The vast majority of petition reviews, it take just between a few days to a couple of weeks to complete at our registrar's offices.

But there was one case in LA County recently that lasted 14 months. It cost the county $1.5 million, on top of the approximately $4 million that was already expended to conduct the initial signature verification.

Unfortunately, there's no clear deadline in law currently, and that's what allowed the review just to be dragged on and on and on, which then created significant financial impacts for the county and cost taxpayers a lot of money. So this review process can help proponents understand trends and rationales for signature rejections. And that's important.

But it's our belief that any actual challenges of the determination, given the way that the system works, been done through the judicial process. So this Bill establishes a reasonable 60 day limit for proponents to examine a failed petition and enables elections officials to recover the costs associated with any additional personnel and resources required.

It will help elections officials better allocate local funding while still protecting this critical transparency opportunity and will not have significant state costs. And with that, I respect for your ask for aye vote. Indeed, it will save money. It will save money for governments.

And primary witnesses in support.

Andy Levenbaum on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, we are proudly sponsoring SB 1441. I want to thank the Committee staff for their thoughtful analysis as well as the Department of Finance analysis. As stated, there really aren't any General funds associated with this Bill.

It focuses on permissions at the local level and includes permission to recover costs for extraordinary costs. As the Senator laid out, there were some initial costs that were borne by the county because those are costs in the regular order of business that we must incur.

But there may be times, and there was in this one case, where we are asked to incur additional extraordinary costs that really should not be borne by the public, they shouldn't be borne by the people.

If we have to rent or purchase space or equipment or personnel to assist, we think that the petitioner of the failed petition should cover those costs, and this gives permission to the county to recover those costs. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but otherwise. Thank you. We support the measure and appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance.

Thank you, we're neutral on this Bill. We estimate no state costs and anticipate no reimbursable state mandate from this Bill since local officials can levy service charges for the higher level of service from county elections officials.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition, we will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close? I'm respectfully asking for an aye Your mic wasn't on.

I am respectfully asked for an aye vote. It's a. It's a way to save money, actually.

Given the work of this Committee. Thank you, Mister Allen. It enjoys a do pass recommendation that's out on AB roll call. Thank you. Thank you. And we have a vote change from earlier on SB 1418. Mister Archuleta.

Letta's Bill, it is out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon changing from a no to an I and Mister Bryan not voting. Great. Do we have any Senators? We don't have any more Senators. So we are looking for Senators Skinner. Senators Skinner, Blakespear, Jones and Hurtado to come present bills into Committee. Come our way.

In the meantime, we will add on to the consent calendar.

Purposes of add on for consent calendar. Aurambula. Brian. Brian I. Wendy Correa. Wendy Correa. I. Thank you.

zero, great. Miss Sancho is going to present for Senator Nguyen. Great. And Miss Sanchez, I believe you are presenting SB 1099.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since 1983, the Department of Public Health has been collecting blood specimens from every infant born in California and testing that blood for evidence of treatable genetic conditions. On average, roughly 500,000 babies are born each year in California. Nearly all of them are now tested 81 different treatable genetic conditions.

On average, about 800 of these babies are identified as having treatable conditions. It's wonderful that we can find and help these babies before their conditions cause irreparable harm. All states in the US have these screening programs available.

In addition to using the blood sample for this initial test, California retains stores and maintains additional blood specimens collected from those babies for research purposes in what is called the California biobank. Since 1983, California has collected and retained approximately 20 million individual blood specimens. Researchers can purchase samples of these specimens for use in their research.

The California biobank is the largest of its kind in the United States and contains a gold mine of information readily available to researchers. Interestingly, there has never been a report to the Legislature about the operations and management of the biobank.

Because of the immense amount of very personal, some might say the most personal, information possible that is contained in the biobank. Along with the public's intense interest in privacy. I bring before you SB 1099.

SB 1099 will require the California Department of Public Health to annually prepare a report, specify data concerning the activities of the California biobank, post it on their website, and deliver a copy of the California Legislature.

SB 1099 provides that the cost to prepare and disseminate this report will be entirely paid for by researchers from the money they pay to access and use the blood specimens in the biobank. No taxpayer dollars will be involved.

The California Department of Public Health, who administer the Biobank, estimates that this cost of the Bill are minor and absorbable. They are already collecting the requested data and can use existing resources to organize and place the information on their website.

There is no opposition to this measure, and it passed the Assembly Health Committee on a vote of 160 with the recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Do we have. We have a motion. Give a second. 2nd great. Would you like to close? Thank you.

SB 1099 will provide this Legislature with information essential to our critical obligation to oversee the operations of California government. I urge your. I vote on SB 1099.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. That's out on an A roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. Next, it looks like we have Ms. Hurtado here. And you are presenting SB 1522?

That is correct. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. SB 1522 would allow the California Department of Food and Ag to adjust the mill assessment rate on fertilizing materials registered in California without using administrative regulations or the rulemaking process, as long as the Fertilizing Industry Advisory Board determines a change is necessary.

The current rulemaking process is lengthy and can take up to one year and a half. It does not allow the Department to react quickly enough to economic trends of the fertilizer industry. As a result, the board is hesitant to recommend any adjustments to the assessment.

By allowing the Department to work with the Fertilizing Industry Advisory Board and adjust the mill assessment based on the recommendations, the Department will be able to respond to the economic trends relating to the fertilizer industry. Additionally, to further streamline the process, SB 1522 extends the validity of the registration of fertilizing material for two years, from two years to four years, and adjusts the fees for registration accordingly. This bill does not increase the registration fee.

CDFA has reported that the cost to adopt this legislation would be minor and absorbable and would allow the Department to expedite the fertilizer registration process, particularly for organic fertilizers. SB 52 is a result of extensive discussions, which is why the fertilizing industry supports the legislation. And here to testify is Taylor Roschen, representing Western Plant Health Association, and Amadou Ba with CDFA to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. You may begin. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Taylor Roschen on behalf of Western Plant Health Association, a trade association representing fertilizer manufacturers, distributors, and ultimately also on behalf of agricultural users of those products. We believe 1522 represents thoughtful statutory changes for broader and more inclusive terminology of innovative agricultural products and allows industry assessments to be made best use, with the assistance of the Department, to be more flexible and responsive. So for these reasons, we support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance.

Thank you. We're neutral on this bill, noting no fiscal impact to the Department of Food and Agriculture.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on an A roll call.

I believe I have Miss Ashby next. And you are presenting SB 1451 you can begin when you're ready.

All right. Hi, colleagues. Try to be quick here for you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. SB 1451 is the annual business and professions code omnibus bill. It makes various changes to the practice acts of a number of programs, programs which have recently been subject to committee sunset review oversight process, including extensive committee hearings.

I know your staff is inundated this time of year, and we want to express our appreciation for the time that your staff has taken to really dig in on this bill and help determine some cost implications for the various provisions.

We're proud that the measure will result in minor costs and some savings, even. In addition to many necessary clarifications to current law, SB 1451 specifically contains provisions that empower female-dominated health professions to safely and successfully increase access to care for California patients. The bill before you today reflects significant stakeholder input. Respectfully request an aye vote on SB 1451.

Thank you. And primary witnesses and support.

Good morning. Christy Weiss with Capitol Advocacy on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners in support. We really appreciate Senator Ashby taking this issue on.

SB 1451 includes important clarifications of existing law that was enacted in 2020 that will enable the BRN to fully implement Assemblymember Wood's bill that allows nurse practitioners who meet certain criteria to work without supervision, helping us expand access to healthcare in the State of California. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Any other primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance.

And there are minor and absorbable costs for the Board of Pharmacy, the respiratory Care Board, the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and the Department of Consumer affairs.

Thank you. We are neutral on this bill, noting that this has no fiscal impact on the Dental Hygiene Board of California, the Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and the Board of Registered Nursing.

The Structural Pest Control Board estimates cost savings of $316,000 for the Structural Pest Control Fund in 2024-25 and ongoing because an exam given by the board was deleted as an option in lieu of continuing education courses. Thank you.

Thank you. And any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition. We. Will bring it back to committee. Any questions from colleagues? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Appreciate your support. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And that is enjoys a do pass recommendation. That's out with Republicans not voting. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have Senator Skinner and you are presenting SB 1210.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. SB 1210 will provide us some us and the public and homeowner builders, you name it. The ability to have some sense of what our various utility hookup fees would be, whether you're constructing a multifamily building adu in your backyard or what have you.

The cost of utility hookup fees and the long timelines for completion have impacted the progress that we've as a state, have been trying to make to address our housing crisis. And of course, a key factor in the ability for us to construct new housing is just costs. Construction costs have gone up, you name it.

So when you're trying to make the plans for how to address that, having some sense in advance of what the utility hookup will cost you and how you might want to approach it. And I'll just give you an example from my own district. I recently completed an ADU in my backyard.

It's for a family Member if I wanted to rent it, meaning if I wanted to be the landlord, I might want a separate, completely separate meter, say, for water utilities, because I may not want to have to deal with paying for the tenant and then having the tenant reimburse me, but just want to have the tenant.

But since it was for a family member, well, that doesn't matter anyway. I learned from my water utility that if I were to get a brand new meter, in other words, a separate meter just for that unit, I would be charged for the meter alone.

And this is for an ADU in the backyard, I would have been charged some $38,000. So I stead opted for just an upgrade to my existing meter and not had it separately metered. But I had to call. I had to make those determinations.

Now, under the law, our public utilities have to have certain information already on their websites. So for the publicly owned utilities, much of this information is available. But for many other utilities, it is not.

And these are important decisions that you have to make when you are creating your, you know, can you figuring out whether you can pull off a construction. So anyway, what 1210 does is it requires our utilities to post a schedule of utility hookup fees by category, the categories being single family, multifamily, mixed use, and

And it exempts. These are really, really small utilities that don't even have websites due to hardship. And it gives utilities until January 1, 2026 to comply. And now I'd like to have Alisa, you have to pronounce your last name. My apologies. I don't want to mess it up. From our Housing Action Coalition.

Thank you. You can begin.

Good morning, chairin Members. My name is Ali Sapirman, and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, who is sponsoring this Bill. The Housing Action Coalition is a Member supported nonprofit working to help solve the housing crisis in California.

In our Members experience, part of what acts as a significant barrier barrier to affordable housing construction are the high utility hookup fees, which further exacerbate already high construction costs. The high fees come in especially when developers are unable to anticipate and budget for them because of the timelines around hookups are so uncertain.

The situation not only adds to the overall expense of housing construction, but undermines efforts to streamline and reduce housing costs in the state. SB 1210 remedies this by implementing common sense reforms that increase transparency between utility companies and the the communities they serve.

SB 1210 is an important step in addressing concerns around utility hookups and will incentivize greater housing production in California during a crucial time. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks? Primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, name, organization and position?

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of Leading Age California in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

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

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out with Republicans not voting with mistakes in voting. No, thank you, Senator Skinner. And we are still looking for Senators Blakespear and Jones, but in the meantime. Okay, I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

Suspense calendar. [Suspense File]

Thank you. The suspense calendar is deemed approved, and now we have Senator Jones, you are up next. And you are presenting SB 708, I believe.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, it's an honor to be with you in the Assembly this morning. I am presenting SB 708, which creates a permit to the Department of State Parks to identify off highway competition motorcycles.

We've worked closely with the Department over the past several years, and I'm happy to say this Bill is estimated to have no General Fund impact and any costs will be covered by the program fees. I'd like to thank the staff, staff at parks for all their assistance with this project over the years, and I ask for your.

aye vote. With me this morning is Terry McHale, representing the Coalition for Public Access.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Great, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing coalition of off highway vehicle recreationists. This is one of the rare situations where environmentalists, the Department and OHV have worked together on the legislation.

It is probably important to note that this does not cost the state any money, but the new certification will result in 10,000 OHVs being certified annually at about $30 a permit fee for $300,000 a year and 1.5 million over a five year period, which will be helpful to a struggling OHV park fund. Thank you very much. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support. Primary witnesses in support. That is, any primary witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it here to the room. Any folks wish to express support? Name, organization and position, please.

Kasha Hunt here with Nossman on behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council in support.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions for the author? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close.

Madam Chair just want to say thank you for the support of yourself and your staff. That's done a great job helping us with this Bill. And for the Members that I've seen prior iterations of this. Thank you for hanging in there with me.

We believe we've got a Bill that all the departments are happy to have, and we're looking forward to your support and the governor's support and ask for your aye vote thank you.

That enjoys do pass recommendations out on an a roll call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And we'll do add ons to the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

So we are just now waiting on Senator Blakespear, if anyone knows where she's at. She's our last author, and she is presenting four bills. So, Miss Blakespear, if you're around, please feel free to come to the Appropriations Committee.

There she is. Perfect timing. You are up and you are presenting SB seven, SB 689, SB 1053 and SB 1216. You may begin when you are ready. And you can take a deep breath if you want.

Thank you, Committee. I heard my name being announced, so I ran down the hall to get here. So we will start with SB 7. Is that what you just said?

Sure, that'd be great. Thanks.

Okay, great. And then after that, if we could do SB 1053.

Sure. Thank you.

Okay, great. Hello. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. SB seven will make minor changes to the minimum requirements for RHNA, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation development process. These changes were recommended to the Legislature based on findings from HCD.

Among the bill's provisions SB seven will require councils of governments to solicit participation in the RHNA development process from people with special housing needs, including people who are unhoused. This bill will not have an impact on the General Fund.

HCD estimates this bill will have minor and absorbable costs and any costs for local governments can be recovered from local fees. With me in support, I have Holly Fraumeni De Jesus on behalf of the Home Builders Alliance.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus for Lifestyle Public Affairs, on behalf of the sponsors, Action Inner City Law Center and SPUR, in support. This is a common sense approach to help local governments reach their housing goals and create hopefully new housing production in future years. So we urge your support.

Great. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Do we have a motion. We have a motion and a second. And a second. Great. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your work on housing production. Greatly appreciate it. Enjoys. Sorry, enjoys a do pass recommendation. Out on a B roll call. And you wanted to do SB 1053 next?

Yes, because I have a lead witness.

Yes. Great. Okay. Thank you, Chair and colleagues, I'm pleased to author SB 1053, which addresses a major problem in California. And that is that plastic waste is choking our planet. This bill has no cost to the state.

The average American uses just uses one plastic bag every day and it is used for an average of 12 minutes before it is disposed of. Worse, only 10% or less of plastic bags are actually recycled. This is due to how difficult the process is.

The rest of the plastic bags remain in our environment for hundreds of years, breaking down into microplastics found everywhere from the bottom of the ocean to human placentas. In 2014, California became the first state to pass a ban on single use plastic bags with SB 270. The state's voters affirmed the ban in 2016 by passing Prop 67.

Under SB 270, store checkouts were required to provide reusable plastic bags or recycled paper bags for 10 cents. The new reusable plastic bags were significantly thicker to facilitate reusability. However, people did not treat these bags any differently and most of them were thrown away.

This meant that between 2014 and 2022, the amount of plastic bag waste actually increased. This is after a plastic bag ban, the plastic bag waste increased, rising by 47%. So rather than trying to redefine a reusable plastic bag, SB 1053 takes a more direct and simple approach.

No plastic bags will be provided at grocery store checkouts. Instead, grocery stores can provide paper bags or customers can bring their own reusable bag. Recent research by Environmental America Research and US PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group finds that when paper is the only option at checkout, far more consumers bring reusable bags.

Consumers have shown they are willing and able to abide by SB 1053's requirements, which will lead to less plastic film bag waste and more sustainable shopping habits. This is frankly overdue and I'm thrilled to champion the separate for our state. With me, I have two witnesses in support, Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the Ocean Conservatory, Oceana, and Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Indeed I am Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium, Ocean Conservancy, and Oceana, urging your support for SB 1053.

We appreciate the Chair's support for the policy in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and also thanks to amendments that were recommended by Chair Bryan in that Committee. SB 1053 is now a very straightforward bill with clear, objective and intent to eliminate plastic film bags, finally. SB 1053 gives you a unique opportunity to simultaneously improve environmental protection, reduce waste, and cut costs to the state. We urge your support.

And I have a second witness, Taylor Roschen from the California Grocers Association.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of California Groceries Association, offering support on SB 1053. We apologize. Our letters don't seem to be registering on the file. Our members are proud to be in the grocery business, not in the bag business.

Latest amendments identifying only paper bags being available at point of sale maintain service to our customers while eliminating all costs for power cycles. So at this point, we request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?

Move the bill.

We have a motion. Great. Do we have a second? Great. And any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition, please step up to the mic. Name, organization, and position.

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

Wes Donnelly with Clean Earth For Kids, supporting this bill, along with FACTS, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action, North County Equity and Justice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee, SD Sequel, Center for Environmental Health, and Clean Water Action.

Gavin McHugh, on behalf of International Paper, we're in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of CALPERG and Environment California, in support.

Great. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. This enjoys a do pass recommendation and is out on a B roll call with Ms. Dixon not voting. Great. Thank you, Ms. Blakespear. And next up, you have two more bills. Would you like to do SB 689?

Sure.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues. SB 689 will remove an unnecessary regulatory hurdle for cities seeking to convert street lanes into bikeways, pedestrian walkways, or dedicated lanes for transit in California's coastal areas. This bill will not have an impact on the General Fund.

The California Coastal Commission estimates this bill will have minor and absorbable costs. This bill is supported by the California Coastal Commission, the League of California Cities, and the California Bicycle Coalition. I have no witnesses here on this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support or opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition?

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion. And we have a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. That's out on a B roll call with Ms. Sanchez voting aye. And the last bill is SB 1216.

Yes. Thank you, chair and colleagues. This is the last Bill. I appreciate your patience. I am pleased to author SB 1216, which will improve safety for cyclists by limiting the overuse of Sharrows and class three bikeways. There are only minor and absorbable costs with this Bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. And do we have any primary witnesses in support or opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion. Motion. Do we have a second? 2nd. Great. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote

That enjoys a do pass recommendation and is out on AB roll call. Thank you very much, chair and colleagues. We now have time for public comment. Folks wish to express support or opposition. Now is your opportunity. You all have the mic name, organization and position microbes.

Mike Robson on behalf of Worthington Enterprises, testifying in opposition to SB 1280. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support of SB 895, Roth, on nursing pilot program, and SB 1246, Limón, on the Prompt Payment Act. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Willie Pelote, representing ASFCME Local 685, Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers, Santa Clara County Deputy Probation Officers, in opposition to SB 987 and SB 1057.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. James Jack, here on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to register support for SB 549, Newman, and here on behalf of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness to register opposition to SB 785, Caballero.

Madam Chair Members. Gary Cooper, representing the California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, in support of SB 980, Wahab, the Smile Act.

Thank you.

Chair, Committee and staff. Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties. Also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and Rural County representatives, California respectful opposition to SB 1057.

Thank you.

My name is. My name is Liz Igra. I'm here to support the California Collaborative for Holocaust and Genocide education. I am a Holocaust child survivor, founder of Central Valley Holocaust Educators Network, and currently also providing holocaust and genocide education at Sacramento State University.

The California Collaborative has enhanced support and enabled small organizations like ours to teach this history, a history that is the only one, the only genocide that has been documented, acknowledged. And remembered by the perpetrators. It's an essential part of our civic society. Thank you.

Kenzie Vitorelo, on behalf of Central Valley Holocaust Educators Network, a proud partner of the California Collaborative, in support of SB 1277.

Thank you.

Morgan Blum Schneider, with the JFCS Holocaust Center in support of SB 1277, the vehicle to carry out the mandate for Holocaust and genocide education. Thank you.

Thank you.

Pilar Onate-Quintana, here for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, here in support of SB 549, Newman, the Tribal Access to Justice Act.

Sheri Rosenblum, the Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation, teaching resistance during the Holocaust throughout the world, and most importantly, in California, in support of SB 1277.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, my name is Brian Ricks. I'm with Los Angeles Unified School District in support of the following bills: SB 53 by Senator Portantino, SB 98 by Senator Portantino also as a proud sponsor. SB 895 by Senator Roth, SB 976 Senator Skinner, SB 991 Senator Gonzalez, also as a proud sponsor. SB 1002 Senator Blakespear, SB 1182 Senator Gonzalez, SB 1244 Newman, 1253 Gonzalez, 1277 Stern, 1288 Becker, and 1374 Becker. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Monica Miller, on behalf of two bills, SB 639, Limone, in support on behalf of Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Alzheimer's Orange County and Alzheimer's San Diego, on behalf of Fix Our Shelters, in opposition to SB 1459. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Christina Di Caro, representing the California Veterinary Medical Association. We are the sponsor of SB 1233 by Senator Wilks pertaining to high quality, high volume spay neuter. Want to thank your Committee for the great analysis. It's spot on, and we are working very hard to identify funds to keep the Bill moving.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Adam Keigwin, on behalf of Bay 101 Casino in San Jose, in opposition to SB 549. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs, on behalf of Hawaiian Gardens Casino, in opposition to Senator Newman's pocket Bill, SB 549.

Thank you.

David Krieger for Commerce Casino, also in opposition to SB 549.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, also in opposition, registering opposition to SB 549. Newman, on behalf of Park West Casinos, but also registering support of SB 1077 by Blakespur.

Facilitating more ADU construction in the coast on behalf of Spur Eden Housing, Housing Commission and Habitat for Humanity California, and finally, registering support for SB 1123 by Caballero, increasing home ownership opportunities in single family zones and high and multifamily areas on behalf of fieldstead and associates, Spur United Way, Greater Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity California, Inner City Law center and build Casa.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ambar Mohammed on behalf of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, representing 52 nations in support of SB 549. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Paul Bauer on behalf of Viejas, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, Upper Lake Tribe, and Kaweah, all in support of SB 549.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Carolyn Veal-Hunter with Sloat Higgins Jensen and Associates, registering support for SB 549, Newman, on behalf of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Pam Lopez with K Street Consulting on behalf of the Santa Rosaria Tachi Yokuts Tribe in support of SB 549, on behalf of the Tule River Tribe in support of SB 549, on behalf of Dry Creek Rancheria in support of SB 549, in support Redding Rancheria in support of SB 549, on behalf of the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe in support of SB 549, and on behalf of the Pit River Tribe in support of SB 549. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Nick Brokaw from Sacramento Advocates here on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in support of SB 549, Newman.

Madam Chair and Members. Excuse me. Dylan Elliott. On behalf of Mayor London Breed, of the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support of SB 925, Senator Wiener. Additionally sharing the support of both Mayor Breed and the California State Association of Psychiatrists, to Senator Egmonds, SB 1184 and 1238. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, in support and proud sponsors of SB 974.

Also on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support and proud sponsor of SB 977, and then on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors for Madera, Mendocino, Placer, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaw, Solano, Shasta, Kern, San Joaquin and Fresno, all in opposition to SB 1057. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Smith on behalf of Artichoke Joe's Cardroom, in opposition to SB 549 Newman. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of Club One Casino, in opposition to SB 549. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY, here, as a proud co-sponsor of SB 1211, Senator Skinner and proud co-sponsor of SB 1123 by Senator Caballero, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cliff Berg on behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee.

The Jewish Public Affairs Committee is the largest coalition of Jewish organizations in the country, including statewide and regional organizations such as the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Greater Bay Area, Los Angeles Jewish Federation, Anti Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, et cetera, representing over 40 Jewish organizations around the state.

In strong support of SB 1277 by Senator Stern, the Holocaust collaborative, SB 1287 by Senator Glazer, intended to deal with anti semitism on college campuses as well as SB 957 Wiener and 976 Skinner and 1504 Stern.

Also Cliff Berg, on behalf of the California Association of Collectors opposed to SB 1061 Limon and SB 1288.

Madam Chair Members Brian White with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Hipcamp we are in support of SB 620 by Senator McGuire to expand recreation outdoor activities in camping.

Thank you chair and Members Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to SB 1057 Menjivar regarding juvenile justice coordinating councils. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Member Shawn Tapeckian, on behalf of Casino M8trix in San Jose in opposition to Senate Bill 549.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges supporting SB 1491 Eggman, SB 895 Roth, SB 959 Menjovar, SB 971 Portantino and SB 1166 Dodd. Thank you.

Thank you. Wes Donnelly with Cleaner For Kids supporting the following bills with facts, North County Equity and Justice Eco-sustainability Peeps, NCCA, CEH, Moms Advocating Sustainability, Yardsmart Marin, Sonoma SAS, Beyond Pesticides, Grandparents Taking Action, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee and SD Sequel. SB 1066 Blakespear, SB 1266 Limon, SB 1166 Niello. Also cleanearthforkids.org Facts, Eco-sustainability Peeps NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action, Activist San Diego Standing Up for Racial Justice, North County Equity Injustice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee and SD sequel supporting SB 53 Portantino, SB 445 Portantino, SB 899 Skinner, and Blakespear, SB 950 Skinner, SB 965 Min, SB 1002 Blakespear, SB 1248 Hurtado. Also Cleaner for Kids, Facts Eco-sustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Taking Action, North County Equity and Justice, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee and SD Sequel supporting SB 1143 Allen, SB 1147 Portantino, ACR 210 Bennett, SB 1402 Min, SB 1178 Padilla, SB 1178 Laird, SB 1208 Padilla, SB 1244 Newman, SB 1255 Urazo, SB 1304 Limon, SB 59 Skinner, SB 934 Gonzalez, SB 960 Wiener, SB 1118 Eggman, SB 1221 Min, SB 1322 Wahab, SB 1374 Becker, SB 1508 Stern, SB 976 Skinner, SB 1182 Gonzalez, SB 1318 Wahab, SB 1078 Min, SB 1112 Menjovar, SB 1382 Glazer, SB 1397 Eggman, SB 1230 Rubio and SB 1448 Hurtado. Also Clean Earth for Kids, Facts, Grandparents Taking Action, NCCA, Eco-sustainability Peeps and North County Equity and Justice oppose SB 610, SB 1298, and SB 1231.

Also opposing SB 1062, SB 632, SB 6708, SB 951, SB 1420, and opposing SB 1234. Also clean water action, supporting SB 1266 and opposing SB 1231. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Maya Steinhardt. I'm a Jewish teacher here in Sacramento, and I am voicing opposition to 1277 and 1287. These bills, taken together, will enshrine Palestinian genocide, Holocaust genocide denialism, as well as remove student activists ability to protest for human rights.

Name and organization and position, please. Thank you.

Sacramento Jewish voice for peace. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Still. I've got another five minutes. My name is David Mandel, also with Sacramento Jewish Voice for Peace and California Jewish Voice for Peace, representing more than 100,000 Members and supporters statewide. I also want to express our opposition to SB 1277.

This would take the make the unusual move of giving the state's blessing to an outside collaborative name organization position and would give $5 million to an organization that is led by biased groups that are.

Name, organization and position. Thank you.

I have some other organizations that I.

You can read those. Sure.

That I'd like to. And 1287, which promotes a false narrative equating anti semitism with a name organization position. If you have other organization to Israeli policies on campuses. Yes.

The other organizations are the Arab Resources and organizing center in the Bay Area US Palestinian Community Network Workers Circle, arbiter ring of Northern California, California Liberated Ethnic Studies group, University of California Student Association for 1287 only. Also that applies to the Sacramento Democratic Party Central Committee, of which I'm a Member.

And for 1277, the Luther Burbank Education Association. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Carly Stelzer, registering support for SB 785 Caballero for Music Artists Coalition and registering support for Common Sense Media on SB 933 Wahab, SB 976 Skinner and SB 1504 Stern. Thank you.

Hi, Karla Garabe Garcia. On behalf of Environmental Defense Center and Natural Resources Defense or, sorry, Natural Resources Defense counsel in support of ACR 210. Thanks.

Hello. Danny Kando Kaiser. On behalf of the sponsors of SB 1061 Limon and SB 278 Dodd, as well as in respectful opposition on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation, to SB 976 and SB 1504. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Duquette. On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in support of SB 820, Alvarado-Gil, SB 1064 Laird, SB 895 Roth and SB 1042 Roth. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Kendra Harris with the Climate Center proud to co sponsor SB 59 Skinner. Asks for your support. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman here on behalf of Motorcycle Industry Council on SB 59, opposed unless amended, to please exclude motorcycles on SB 1057 on behalf of County of Monterey, oppose. And on SB 1255 on behalf of Padre Dam and a Leavenham Municipal water district, oppose.

Chair and Member Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau and also on behalf of the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership in support of SB 620. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Chair and Members, Cynthia Valencia, legislative advocate with ACLU California Action Here, SB 1287 Aga. Senator Glazer opposed unless amended, SB 2226 oppose SB 1297. Allen oppose SB 976. Skinner oppose SB 954. Manjavar support SB 1161. Becker support SB 42. Umberg oppose SB 402. Wahabs oppose SB 1184. Eggman oppose SB 1238. Egmond oppose and SB 1061.

Limon in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And anyone else? Okay, we are meeting adjourned.