Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

And so anything that costs money, anything over $100,000 or $150,000 of General Fund dollars comes to this committee and gets placed on suspense, which means we'll be looking at them all together. So we have a lot of bills on suspense today. It means that we welcome your testimony. I'm going to call the bills. We'll move fairly quickly.

We have 33 measures on today's agenda. Last week, we had 350, so we were here for many, many hours. And out of those 33 measures, two of them are eligible for a do pass motion, which means two of them are under the $150,000 threshold and will go straight to the floor. The remaining items are suspense file candidates, as I said.

We have one suspense file bill that will have a presentation, but the authors for the remaining suspense bills have waived presentation. It means they will not be here to present their bill. So we'll be taking testimony from the public on each and every item, even if the author has waived presentation.

And we have one bill, AB 2297 by Assembly Member Friedman, that is listed on our file, but it will be reported directly to the floor pursuant to Senate Rules 28.8. So we will not have testimony on that bill today. So if you are here for AB 2297, that file has already will be moving to the floor, and we'll take it up there. As usual, we will extend a courtesy to any of the Assembly Members that show up in person, and we'll allow them to present their bills out of agenda order as they show up.

So if you see us jump to other bills, that's the reason, is because we're honoring their time and they've got other work to do. So before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill. In other words, how much it's going to cost. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments.

And when we get to the public comments, if you can say your name, if you belong to an organization, and whether you're in support or opposed, that would be great. That's the process. We don't have a quorum yet? So we, we were hoping we'd have a quorum, and we don't. But we're going to start as a committee and that'll allow us to get, start going through the bills. And you don't, you won't have to sit around and wait.

So would appreciate if any of the Committee Members that are listening to this, if they could show up so we could establish a quorum. It'll make the hearing go a little bit smoother. So we're ready to start. The first Bill up is AB 4, which is by Assemblymember Arambula, who has waived presentation.

Want to see if there's anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 4. In support of AB 4, AB is there anyone here who would like to testify in opposition to 4? Department of Finance.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee.

Eth Machado, on behalf of the Department of Finance, we have no file on this Bill. Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. We're going to wait until we get a quorum. Moving on to AB 2240 by assemblymember Arambula, who has waived presentation on this item.

Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

[Translated] Jose Luis Cisneros. No on AB 2240.

Very good. Thank you very much. That was a no.

[Translated] Miguel Rivera, Parlier Migrant Center, no to the proposal of AB 2240.

Thank you very much. That's a no as well.

[Translated] My name is Manuel Perez, Parlier Center. No to the 2240 proposal.

[Translated] Thank you. Very good. Again, a no.

[Translated] My is name is Agapito de León. I am from Parlier Center. No to the proposal AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much. That's also a no.

[Translated] My name is Jose Romero Mesa Ibarra, and I come from Parlier Migrant Center. No to the proposal AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much. Thank you. That's another no.

Good morning. My name is Rodolfo Acevedo. I'm here to say no to AB 2240. I'm coming from Harney Lane in Lodi, California.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Guadalupe. I am coming from Harney Lane Camp. And no to AB 2240.

Thank you very much. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning. Sonia Mendez, French Camp Migrant Center. No to AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] My name is Jesus. No to AB 2240.

Thank you very much. Another no.

I'm Jenny Sakihara. I'm advocating for farm workers by saying no to AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning, everyone. My name is Julio Ortiz Avalos. I am from Buena Vista Migrant Camp, Watsonville, California. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much, sir. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning. Pedro Salcedo. Artesi II, French Camp. No on AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning. I'm coming from Parlier Center to say no to AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Veronica Mesa Hernandez. I am coming from Parlier Migrant Center. No to the proposed AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much. Thank you. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning, honorable board and general public. My name is Marta Zamudio Calderon, and I'm coming from Parlier Migrant Center to protest against the proposal of AB 2240. Thank you very much.

[Translated] Thank you very much. Thank you. Another no.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Hermalinda. I am from the camp Artesi II. No to the proposal AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

[Translated] Hi, good morning. My name is Guadalupe Modesto. I'm from French Camp, Camp 2. And no to the proposal AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Ramon Modesto. I come from the migrant center on French Camp. I'm gonna say no to AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] My name is Luisa Magdaleno, and I am against the proposal AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Translated] My name is Maria Cruz. I am from Artesi II of French Camp. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[Translated] I am coming from Camp 2 of French Camp. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Maria Los Angeles Ochoa Garcia. And I am coming from French Camp, Camp 2, and I am against the AB 2240 proposal.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Mrs. Maria Ochoa. I am from Camp 2, and I do not agree with proposal AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Adriana Trujillo. I am coming from Parlier Camp. No to proposal AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. I come from Buena Vista Camp in Watsonville. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much, sir.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Ruby Cortez. I come from Harney Lane Migrant Center in Lodi. No on AB 2240. We are afraid of losing our homes, of losing the migrant program that supports our students. We know that it is a special program designed for us, the farm workers. Thank you for listening.

[Translated] Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Translated] Santiago Calderon Diaz. No on AB 2240. Harney Lane Camp.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

[Translated] Hello. Good morning. My name is Guadalupe Zarate Anguiano. I come from French Camp, Artesi II. I am also against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Stephanie Juarez, and I'm here to say no to AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. I am from Artesi II, French Camp. My name is Jose Gregorio. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

Octavio Solorio. I'm an advocate for farmworkers, and I say no to 2240.

Thank you.

Alma Rodriguez. No on AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Hello, good morning. My name is Daniel Rodriguez, and I vote no on AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good, thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Juan Quiroz. I am coming from the Watsonville Migrant Camp, and I say no to AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you, sir.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Rogelio Vaca, and I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] My name is Valentin Calderon. I come from Watsonville, Buena Vista Camp. I say no to AB 2240. We demand housing for people who want it all year round. We are also against this proposal because we do not have enough work all year round to sustain the income to pay for the whole year. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Mrs. Marbella Calderon, and I am against AB 2240. Because we are the farm workers, and the minimum wage is not enough to pay more rent than we have. The rent we are paying now is sometimes too much for us for the salary that we are receiving.

[Translated] Thank you very much, ma'am. Very good.

[Translated] Hello. My name is Yesenia Calderon. I am coming from the Buena Vista Center. I say no on AB 2240. Please help us.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Hello. My name is Concepcion Garcia. I come from the Buena Vista Camp, and I say no to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you, ma'am.

[Translated] I am Rosa Garcia Lemos, and I come from Buena Vista Camp. I say no to the proposal.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Hello. Good morning. My name is Jose Ortiz Avalos, and I am representing my fellow workers. And we are asking for help so that you can continuing supporting us. And we are against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Very good, sir. Thank you.

[Translated] God bless you. I am Gerardo, and I come from Buena Vista. I do not agree with the law.

[Translated] Thank you, sir.

Yes, my name is Angelica Naranjo, and I'm against to the proposition of AB 2240. Help us not to open it yearly. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Genoveva Naranjo. I come from the Harney Lane Camp in Lodi. I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you, ma'am.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Salud Galvan, and I come from Parlier Camp. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Berta Higuera. I have come from the Parlier migrant camp. I am also against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Evangelina Pimentel. I am representing 90 families from Parlier Camp, and we are against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good.

[Translated] Letters from my colleagues and signatures that support it here.

[Translated] Okay, yes. If you can give it to the lady. She's the one in charge of the audience. Yes, can you wait a moment? We're going to do a little action. We're going to take a break right now so that we can establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Translated] We have a quorum, so we can start taking action on this. So continue ma'am, excuse me.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Cecilia Calderon. I come from Harney Lane Camp in Lodi. I am against AB 2240 for the reasons that it will be very confusing for our families. Their health will be affected by not knowing what will happen, and our children in schools...

[Translated] Understand. Thank you. Thank you. Sir.

[Translated] Good morning. I come from Harney Lane in Lodi. I am against this law, AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good, sir. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Juan Espinoza, and I am against the law AB 2240. Please help us.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Alberto Perez. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good, sir. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Martina Pantoja, and I am against the law AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you, ma'am.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Rodolfo Canela, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gabriel Pargeter. I'm here as a representative from the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Stockton, and we are against AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Reverend Matt Pargeter-Villarreal. I'm the minister for the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Stockton. I'm here with the Western Farm Workers from Stockton, Yuba City, and Santa Cruz, and I'm here to urge you to vote against AB 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Hello. My name is Erica, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is... Gutierrez, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Hello. Good morning. My name is Berta Martinez, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Victorino Martinez, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you, sir.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Mayra Avila, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Cesar Morales, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Carina Avila. I am a migrant worker, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Maria Mendez, and I am against this proposal. Thank you very much.

[Translated] Thank you, ma'am.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Martin Avila, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good, sir. Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Salud Cortés. I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Yesenia, and I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Aurelina Perez, and I am against AB 2240.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alicia Mosqueda, and I'm against AB 2240.

Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Josefina Luna. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you, ma'am.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Maria Guadalupe Rodriguez, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Alicia Lemos, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Veronica Viveros, and I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Estrella Lemos, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning. I'm from CRLA Foundation. My name is Dafnet Rodriguez, and I'm also against AB 2240.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm here with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. My name is Monica Garcia Ortega, and I am against AB 2240.

Thank you.

My name is Miguel Cárabe, I'm from Artesi III in French Camp. I am against AB 2240.

Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Juan Lemos. I live in Artesi III. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

[Translated] Hello. My name is Fabian Calderon. I live in Artesi III, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Dario Ramirez, and I am the secretary representing the camp in Yuba City. And we have also come to say no to AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Fernando Serrato from the Artesi III camp, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Maria Esquivel. I am from Harney Lane Camp. I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Alicia Soto. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Maria Menchaca, resident of Harney Lane. No to AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Jose Vera. I'm coming from Lodi, Harney Lane. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] My name is Brenda Favela. I'm from Harney Lane Camp, and I'm against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Guadalupe Perez. I am against AB 2240, and I'm from Harney Lane Camp.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Evelyn Cortez, and I don't agree with the law, B 2240.

Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Marisela Cortez. I am against AB 2240. Harney Lane Camp. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Andres Luna. I'm from Harney Lane Camp. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Miguel Angel Aguilar. I am representing Artesi III, French Camp. We would like for people to take note and see how the law is going to affect all these people, AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Joy Mariachi. I am from Artesi II, French Camp. I am against the law, AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good, ma'am. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Jesus. I am from French Camp, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Maria Prado, and I am from French Camp. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. I am Jesus Soria. I am from Camp 2. I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Luis Perez Cortes. I am against AB 2240. I am from French Camp, Camp 3.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Roberto Perez Cortez. I am from Artesi III, French Camp. I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name in Armando Perez. I am also against AB 2240. I'm from French Camp.

[Translated] Thank you.

[Translated] My name is Rafael. I am against AB 2240. Thank you.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you.

Good morning, council members. My name is Scott Minott. I'm from Stockton, California. Retired teacher, and I would wanted to report to you that we just had a phone call from representing 45 farm workers from Orange County that are also against AB 2240.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Guillermo Perez, and I am against AB 2240.

[Translated] Very good. Thank you, sir.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Delia Cortes. I am against AB 2240. I am from Camp Lodi. Thank you.

[Translated] Thank you very much.

[Translated] Have we seen all... Okay. Let me say thank you to all the people who came today to give their testimony. This is, as I explained in English before, the Fiscal Committee. In other words, if a proposal has something to do with a fee, something to do with money it will cost the state. We have been in charge of determining which proposals will continue and which ones will stay here and die.

[Translated] Which ones will continue, which ones will end. Your testimony is very, very important. We will review it in more detail, and this week we will pass the proposals that qualify. At this moment, we are going to take action to put it on hold. But I wanted to say thank you very much for your testimony.

[Translated] I know that you had to be here today. You had to be leave very, very early in the morning, one. And two, you missed a day of work. If you know me, I'm Anna Caballero. I was the Mayor of the City of Salinas, but now I represent the Central Valley. We can't take questions. But we're going to find out from the Department of Finance the cost. They have a file.

[Translated] We're going to send this to committee. This proposal is for suspense. I just wanted to explain the process because it's a little difficult to understand exactly what we're going to do. You may get an opportunity to continue fighting it, or it may die in this committee. Okay. That's the process, yes. Sir. That's great. Thanks. I hope you voted for me. The organization is very big. Okay, very good. Let's move to the Department of Finance. Department of Finance.

No file.

[Translated] Okay. There is no file. So we do have a quorum. This is a suspense candidate. So if there's no questions, without objection, we will move this to suspense. Thank you very much everyone.

[Translated] And if you want to leave, this is the time to do it. Let's continue with the agenda. Thank you very much. So just to be clear, AB 2240 was moved to suspense.

And we're gonna go back to AB 4, which we heard earlier. And that is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 4 will move to suspense as well. Yeah. Okay. Yes, I'm looking for his. We'll give him a second to exit the room.

He was here first? Okay. Thank you for that. Members, we're gonna. I think he was here first. Yeah, we're gonna move on in the agenda and we're jumping here. Assemblymember Ting is here. So we'll invite him to come forward.

And just for the Committee's sake, I explained in Spanish what I explained earlier in the morning in English. And so that way they know what the process is. So. Assemblymember Ting, AB 1777.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm presenting AB 1777, which is my autonomous vehicle Bill. We've been working very closely with our law enforcement and public safety officials. As you know, in San Francisco, autonomous vehicles have been on the road for quite a while.

And given our experience, we've had a number of situations where autonomous vehicles have broken the law. They have actually driven their vehicles with passengers into live police situations, live fire situations. What the Bill does is set up a process where autonomous vehicle companies will be held accountable.

Currently, there is no way for a law enforcement officer to cite an autonomous vehicle company the way we would be cited if you or I were speeding or ran a stop sign. So this sets up a process where we will be able to hold autonomous vehicles accountable.

There will be a dedicated hotline for first responders to be able to talk to somebody, should they need to immobilize or move that vehicle. Also, this will allow a process to set up two-way communication between the car and a public safety officer should there need to be communication to stop the vehicle or to move the vehicle. Also,

Speaking to the fiscal part of it, if you could get.

Sure. I don't know what the fiscal part of it is.

This does enjoy a do passs recommendation.The longer you go on it, we're likely to.

Very, very good. Yes, very good. Happy to. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB1777.

Very wise man. Is there any.

Thank you for the nudge. Appreciate it.

Anybody here to speak in support?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Both in support. Thank you.

Very good. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. You may conclude.

Oh, just ask your aye vote.

Very good. This Bill has a do pass motion. Do I have a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford? Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Six to zero. That Bill is out.

Thank you.

Actually, we will place it on call for Senator Jones. I do apologize. I got too excited there. We're going to now move on to AB 2498 by Assemblymember Zbur. This is a suspense file candidate.

And again, fiscal.

Thank you, chair Members. I'm proud to present AB 2498 which is a priority Bill for both the Progressive Caucus and the LGBTQ caucus. This Bill is jointly authored with Assembly Member Quirk Silva and co authored by Assemblymember Alanis and Lee.

One of the most cost effective and compassionate ways of reducing the number of Californians experiencing homelessness is prevention, empowering people who are currently housed to stay in their homes.

AB 2498 the California Housing Security act, which is the product of Assembly Member Quirk-Silva and I and Mister Alanis merging similar bills, will increase housing security by providing housing subsidies to eligible individuals and requiring the California Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a two year pilot program for up to eight counties across the state and provide an amount necessary to cover the portion of a person's housing not to exceed either a one time $2,000 subsidy or an ongoing subsidy of up to $2,000 per month for the duration of the two year pilot program.

The Department of Finance states that this Bill creates General Fund costs in the billions, which we disagree with. I would like to highlight that this Bill shall become operative only upon appropriation by the Legislature of sufficient funds for the purpose of the pilot program. The Bill does not create some kind of statewide entitlement that will cost billions.

If we are successful in achieving an appropriation, it will cost the amount that ultimately is allocated to the eight county pilot program program.

The Bill creates a pilot program that has specific criteria that envisions that local governments and nonprofits will submit proposals to the Department of Housing and Community Development who we worked with, and I'm very grateful for their technical input about how to structure the Bill to administer specific programs that are costed out and limited in cost through the grants that are issued.

When we were devising the criteria and oversight for the Bill, we crafted it as a pilot program and envisioned funding of between 100 and $200 million.

Finally, in part as a result of budget sub chair five Assembly women Quirk Silva's advocacy the budget does include $1 billion allocated through the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program that is intended to Fund programs to prevent homelessness.

Because new bills were not funded through the budget this year, the HHAPP criteria would need to be modified to allow a portion of the funding to be tapped.

So we intend to work with the Administration and the budget on legislative leadership to develop support for about 100 to 200 million to be allocated from this year or next year's AHAPP allocation to this important pilot program.

In closing, housing subsidy programs play a crucial role in reducing hardship, improving health, and promoting economic stability and contributing to potential cost savings in the future. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Quirk Silva for her partnership and her amazing advocacy for the state to make meaningful steps regarding homelessness prevention, and for her work leading Assembly budget sub five.

Respectfully ask for your support.

Very good. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of the Bill?

Good morning. Chair Members, Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica and the City of West Hollywood, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Kim Lewis of the California Coalition for Youth in support.

Thank you. Craig Pulsner. On behalf of Equality California and support. Thank you.

Becca Cramer-Mowder. On behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Caroline Grinder.

On behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Very good. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this Bill. The Department of Housing and Community Development estimates $797,000 General Fund and four positions in that 202627 and ongoing for state operations to administer the pilot program.

Finance notes that depending on the scope of the program, this Bill likely creates General Fund cost pressures in the billions of dollars annually for two years to provide housing subsidies to eligible individuals.

The state provided a total of 4.5 billion, of which 1.6 billion from the General Fund to approximately 377,000 households through the state administered Emergency Rental Assistance program.

For these reasons, finance, as opposed to this Bill because it creates new General Fund costs and significant General Fund cost pressures of billions of dollars annually that were not included in the 2024 budget.

Seeing no comments or questions, Assembly Members of Bur, you may conclude, yeah, the.

Only thing they'll basically say is that this is not some open ended hit on the budget. It would require an appropriation, and since it's a pilot program, it will cost what is appropriated for the program plus the administrative cost that I think he's indicated. Thank you very much.

Thank you. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2498 will move to suspense. Okay, we're going to go back to the top of the agenda, and the next up is AB 544 by Assemblymember Brian, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support?

Becca Cramer Mowder, on behalf of ACLU, California Action, League of Women Voters of California, and the Ella Baker Center in support. Thank you very much.

Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

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

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance?

the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this measure. The Secretary of State estimates cost of $155,000 General Fund in 202526 and 13,000 General Fund in 202627 through to 202930 to implement this Bill.

Additionally, the Secretary of State estimates costs of $900,000.01 time General Fund in 202526 to provide grants for three counties to implement programs to improve voter participation in jail facilities. Additionally, this Bill may create a state reimbursable mandate because it requires a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies.

Once again, finance is opposed to this Bill because it results in General Fund costs not included in the 2024 budget and may impose state reimbursable costs on the three pilot program counties.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 544 will move to suspense. Okay, moving on to AB 653 by Assemblymember Reyes. Assemblymember Reyes has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? In opposition.

Good morning. My name is LaShelle Dozier. I'm the Executive Director of Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency as well as the Legislative Chair for the California Association of Housing Authorities. CAHA is a statewide sssociation representing over 75 public housing authorities throughout the state.

We are independent public entities which operate under federal regulations from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. CAHA and the PHAs provide affordable housing that meets the housing crisis for people here in California. We appreciate the efforts of the author and the sponsoring organization intent to enhance the utilization of voucher program.

However, we believe that the Bill does not align with the goal of achieving that objective effectively and respectfully oppose the Bill. As it is currently drafted, it is to authorize grant funding and to provide services to program applicants seeking housing through a housing choice voucher.

But unlike most grant programs, the regulatory and reporting aspects of AB 653 would apply to all California housing authorities, whether they apply for the grant funding for the program or not. This takes away from the precious time that we have, and this is a program that already struggles administratively with not getting enough funding from HUD.

If staff are spending time doing all of the reporting that's required on the 653, they don't have the time necessary to really focus on helping our families get into housing as quickly as possible.

There is a very effective program that HUD has administered called the Emergency Housing Voucher program that employs all of the things that 653 has done and I just want to have my colleague Patricia Wells, who is the CEO of Oakland Housing Authority. Just talk about the success of that program.

So you know what? This is really not a policy discussion. This is a fiscal discussion. So with all due respect, I hate to cut anybody off, but we're just focusing on the fiscal. And this is going to go to suspense. It's not getting out today.

So if you could just kind of wrap up, and I appreciate the detail with which you could probably go into housing, which is complicated, but if it doesn't align with federal, the Federal Government, then that's really the focus, because this is state money that we're putting out there.

So can I ask one question? Fiscal of course.

Can we wait until. Well, actually, go ahead.

Just for this particular speaker. Sorry. I'll be quick and brief. Because this Committee is really about the fiscal part of the Bill.

Is it your part of your conclusion and your analysis of the Bill that from a fiscal standpoint for agencies like yours that are providing housing for counties, that it would increase or reduce the number of federal vouchers that we have to give funding to people who need them?

It would reduce, in terms of the ability for us to respond to our local housing officials.

In other words, we could lose federal vouchers and therefore have fewer resources for people who are experiencing homelessness.

Right. Because there's a contradiction between if there's a state and a federal, and federal is really what we answer to.

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good question and appreciate that. Thank you so much. Yes.

Patricia Wells, CEO of the Oakland Housing Authority, also past President of the National Association of Housing and Development Officials, respectfully in opposition of this Bill. The fiscal impact, Chair, would be that housing authorities would be required to do work that is unfunded, as would the state, HCD.

HUD, the authorizing entity for HCD program, understood this through the issuance of the emergency housing vouchers, of which 75,000 of them were distributed nationally. Here in California, we successfully leased up in 1.5, in one year and a half.

And we did that because there was $3,500 per unit allocated for those costs, such as services for the clients, services for the landlords, and administrative costs. So that proven successful program indicates that for the State of California and for our housing authorities, the impact would be significant on fiscal loss as well as available voucher loss. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you.

Thomas Franco, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission in opposition to AB 653. We believe that the Committee analysis appropriately states the fiscal impact on both the local agency and the state. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Eric Johnson, representing the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and we respectfully oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dr. Tonia Lediju, CEO of the Housing Authority for the City and County of San Francisco and we respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Quan, housing authority of the County of San Joaquin. I'm the Director of Occupancy and Housing Compliance, and I respectfully oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rob Fredericks, Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, Executive Director. We also respectfully oppose this Bill for the reasons that were previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ricardo Torres with the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura and respectfully oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Senator Caballero, Members of the Committee, Preston Prince. I'm the Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, past President of NAHRO, the National Association of Housing Redevelopment Officials and an officer of the Northern California Chapter of CAHA, and we oppose this Bill. I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kira Rosoff on behalf of the City of Glendale, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Stephen Stensler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Housing California, National Housing Law Project, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the co-sponsors of this legislation in support. Thank you.

Was that in support?

Yes.

Okay. Alrighty. Is there anyone else in opposition? Or since we're taking support too in support? Seeing none, Department of Finance?

The Department of Fincance is currently opposed to this Bill. The Department of Housing and Community Development is not able to provide a specific cost estimate at this time. However, preliminary estimates indicate several millions dollars General Fund annually to establish and administer the program.

The Department of Finance notes that this Bill creates General Fund cost pressures of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for HCD to provide public housing authority program grant funding. Additionally, funding appropriated for the program cannot be used for HCD's administrative costs, which will require additional General Fund appropriations.

Therefore, finance is opposed to this Bill because it creates General Fund costs and cost pressures not included in the 2024 budget.

Thank you. Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 653 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 799 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Becca Kramer matter on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

How about in opposition? Department of Finance. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else in support?

The Department of Finance is currently opposed to this measure. California Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates a need for two positions and $665,000 General Fund in 2025-26 and $349,000 General Fund in 2026-27 as well as ongoing pressure to collect fiscal and outcome data from state departments and agencies.

Finance once again opposes this Bill because it creates General Fund costs not included in the 2024 Budget act.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 799 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 863 by Assemblymember Aguiar Currie, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Greg Hurner, on behalf of the Carpet Cushion Council. I think in regards to the fiscal issue, anytime you put a fee on a product, you're going to increase costs. The state is a major landlord, a major tenant in the state. Replacing any of the materials is going to drive up state costs.

As far as cushion goes, cushion is not exclusive to carpet. It is almost 100% recycled material, and there's no reason to bring cushion into the carpet program. In order to subsidize the carpet recycling program, we recycle foam from automotive, from mattress recycling, from mattress production, from specialized packaging.

So all it's going to do is increase cost to the state for another layer of material that's already meeting the circularity goals that the state wants to put in place. So there's no reason to put an additional fee on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in a post in opposition?

Department of Finance, no file.

So you're seeing no comments or questions from the Committee? This is a suspense file, candidate. So without objection, AB 863 will move to suspense AB 2223 by Assemblymember Aguiar Currie, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition.

Madam Chair Members?

Rand Martin, on behalf of the US Hemp Roundtable, the fiscal impact that's not acknowledged in the analysis is the fact that many businesses that are currently following the rules that we set forth three years ago will be put out of business because they'll no longer be allowed to manufacture the products that are selling to consumers now.

That will meet a substantial loss of sales tax revenue, employee tax revenue, and other local taxes. If this bill were to go into effect in its current form, most of the bill is perfectly fine.

It's a good bill, but we need to make sure that the good actors in California are not being harmed while we try to get rid of the bad actors. Appreciate your opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Morning, Madam Chair. My name is Patrick Schatzer. I'm the regulatory affairs manager for Sunmed, your CBD store. We're the largest brick and mortar CBD retailer in the US. We have 18 locations in California which are set to close if this bill goes through.

For the fiscal impact this bill jeopardizes 250 million in sales tax revenue at over 41,000 jobs. Our stores alone since October 2021 have generated $11.5 million, paying approximately like 410,000 in sales taxes.

This bill is a good bill, but the line of intoxication that it draws of THC is so Low that it doesn't allow normal General wellness to survive. You'll hear from a few of our store Members now. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Chad Peyto, three locations in North Bay. I'm from Petalinuma, California. This would definitely have an impact. It would definitely close the three stores I have. We do one and a half $1.0 million a year in tax revenue and that also would lose 10 jobs from staff Members. I think it's a great bill. We do need regulations.

We do need a cap. I would support like an excise tax because there is no enforcement and it's always hurt the good actors and the bad actors will always exist.

Thank you very much, opposing. So I don't need to hear the good bill stuff because we're not here on the policy, we're here on the money. So I just want to make it clear we're focusing on the revenue.

Hi, my name is Alliso Schmidt. I'm district manager for Sunmed, your CBD store. I have three locations within the Bay Area. This bill would result in myself and my 10 team Members losing our jobs as I am opposed to this bill. Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Lauren Lurch. I am an owner of your CBD store in Sunmede. I have five locations here in Southern California and I am here to oppose this bill. I was a customer first using sunmed products due to PTSD from being involved in a mass shooting.

I am someone that would not shop at another location for generic wellness products like this. I oppose this bill because I know we will lose customers. We've done over $6 million in the past few years. All sales with sales tax, county permits, and I will lose 15 staff Members.

And as a mother of three and being there for other clients, we need to stay in business. This bill will shut down our stores. So I respectfully oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and the Committee. My name is Michael Ramirez. I'm one of the owners of a $52 million facility built down in LA to support this industry. We have over 100 employees and if this bill passes, it will shut down our facility. We also represent and make drinks for folks like Cheech and Chong.

We think this is. I won't get into that bill, but five milligrams is what's going to keep this bill. Sorry, our industry alive. And the 5% excise tax. We submitted amendments and hopefully that you all received them, but the 5% excise tax that we're requesting should bring in about $200 million the first year, which we need.

If it doesn't, it's going to cost us more than that in enforcement. So please, we would just request you look at our amendments and go with them. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Kim Craig with AHRQ Strategies on behalf of CAN we are a producer of Low dose hemp beverages. And for the comments right previously before me, we are opposed unless amended your time today.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance no file okay, seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense candidate. So without objection, AB 2223 will move to suspense AB 1198 by Assemblymember Grayson, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support of AB 1198?

How about in opposition?

Department of Finance the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this measure. According to the governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, this bill results in ongoing General Fund costs in the range of 1.6 million to $2.4 million annually beginning in 2024, 25 for increased workload.

For these reasons, the Department of Finance is opposed to this bill as a result in increased ongoing General Fund costs not included in the 2024 Budget act.

Very good saying no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1198 will move to suspense. We already took up AB 1777, so we'll move on to AB 2401 by Assembly Member Ting who has waived presentation on this bill. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Wes Donnelly with cleanearthforkids.org, supporting AB 2401 Ting along with following organizations Facts, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA, SDSEQL, Grandparents Taking Action, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee, Activist San Diego, Carlsbad Democrats, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and the North County Equity and Justice thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? About anyone in opposition Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is currently opposed to this measure. The state Air Resources Board estimates implementing the bill requires $1.1 million from greenhouse gas reduction Fund and five permanent positions in 202425 and ongoing.

Once again, finance is opposed to this bill because it results in ongoing greenhouse gas reduction Fund costs not included in the multi year cap and trade expenditure plan that was adopted as part of the 2024 budget agreement.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2401 will move to suspense AB 1859 by Assemblymember Alanis, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this measure. The Department of Public Health estimates costs of $690,000 General Fund for the first three years and $200,000 annually thereafter to modify and populate the California overdose Surveillance dashboard.

The Department of Finance additionally anticipates this Bill likely creates a state reimbursable mandate of approximately $580,000 General Fund for county coroners. This assumes an average cost of $10,000 annually for 58 counties to meet the requirements of the Bill.

Again, finance is opposed to this bill because it creates a state reimbursable mandate in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and creates other General Fund costs not included in the 2024 budget.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1859 will move to suspense AB 3080 by Assemblymember Alanis, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Good morning chair and Members, Danny Kando Kaiser, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier foundation as well as privacy rights clearinghouse. As the analysis indicates, the bill has the potential to cost California significant amounts in state funded trial costs.

We have seen at least eight cases in other states, including which are all related to First Amendment violations filed against similar age verification laws in other states.

While the total costs are still unknown, we know that in Florida alone as of 2022, the costs were $10 million just in that state alone and ongoing for that cost or for that state.

We note that federal legislation related to age verification is underway and we would urge this Committee to hold this Bill while we await what's going to happen at the federal level and not invite additional significant costly lawsuits to the State of California. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Becca Kramer matter on behalf of ACLU California Action also in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance no file seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3080 will move to suspense AB 1864 by Assemblymember Connally, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support.

Wes Donnelly with cleanroom.org comma supporting AB 1864 Connolly along with the following organizations Facts, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCA, SCSEQUEL, Grandparents Taking Action, North County Equity and Justice, CEH Center for Environmental Health, Moms Advocating Sustainability, Yardsmart, Marin Sonoma Sass, Standing Up for Racial Justice, Carlsbad Democrats, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Beyond Pesticides. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this measure. Department of Pesticide Regulation estimates costs of $174,000 from the of Pesticide Regulation Fund and one permanent position ongoing to update regulations and evaluate counties pesticide use enforcement programs related to pesticide application near school sites.

In addition, regulations already currently require pesticide use reports to include the day and time which pesticide application starts and ends. Further, the Department of Education already publishes a California school directory publicly on its Internet website, including private school location data.

Finance is opposed to this Bill because it results in additional costs not included in the 2024 budget and appears to be partially duplicative of existing authority.

Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1864 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1893 by Assemblymember Wicks, who has waived presentation. Is there anybody here who would like to testify and support? How about.

Oh, go ahead, Holly C. Fraumeni with Lighthouse Public Affairs in support of the Bill on behalf of Habitat for Amenity California, Sandhill Properties, Spur, Civic Well and California YIMBY.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor on behalf of Feld Stud and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Junior, an Orange County, philanthropist, in support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Stephen Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? How about in opposition?

Good morning. Madam Chair and Member Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Rancho Palace Verde, is in opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning to our Members Brady Garner, on behalf of the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance.

No file.

Okay, seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file. Candidate with. So, without objection, AB 1893. We'll move to suspense AB 2243 by Assembly Member Wicks, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support?

Again, Holly Firminia Dejsus with lighthouse public affairs in support of the Bill on behalf of Spur, Civicwell and California Yimby.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor, for Fieldstead, in support.

Thank you very much.

Stephen Stanza with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Good morning, chair and members, Elisa Arcidiocono with Towns and Public Affairs, on behalf of the Cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach and, excuse me, LA Habra. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, chair members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2243 will move to suspense. AB 1950 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. Is there anyone here who. And Assembly Member Carrillo has waived presentation.

Anyone here who would like to testify and support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? How about in opposition? Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance does not currently have a formal position on this Bill, but estimates that this may create a state reimbursable mandate of an unknown but potentially significant amount because it requires a new program or higher level of service to be provided by local agencies.

Seeing no comment or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 1950 will move to suspense. AB 2297 has moved to the floor, as previously noted, under the 28.8 rule. So we're moving on to AB 2507 by Assemblymember Friedman, who has waived presentation.

Is there anybody here who would like to testify and support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cliffberg here on behalf of co-sponsors of the bill, Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California and Jewish Free Loan Association. This bill would establish a pilot program for students at risk of homelessness, an emergency pilot program in a limited number of higher ed facilities. We all know that students are drowning in debt.

We also know the state budget dramatically cuts assistance to Suez. This bill provides, at a very minimal cost, $30,000 a year, an opportunity to help students who are most at risk of falling out of the higher ed system who are at risk of homelessness.

It is an opportunity to demonstrate that a nonprofit program can provide assistance to students in a way that's much more cost effective than government. We would urge your support of this bill.

Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance the Department of Finance is currently opposed to this bill. The California Student Aid Commission estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $30,000 per year to administer the program.

Finance estimates this bill could create limited term General Fund cost pressures that could range from the Low millions to tens of millions of dollars per year for the duration of the program to cede the program's ability to provide loans to eligible students.

This cost pressure would be dependent upon the number of eligible students that opt to participate in the loan program as well as the size of the loans provided to eligible students.

See no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2507 will move to suspense AB 2552 by Assembly Member Friedman, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support?

Hello, Wes Donnelly with cleanearth4kids.org supporting this Bill along with the following organizations. Facts, Eco Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA, SD Sequel, Grandparents Taking Action, North County Equity and Justice, Center for Environmental Health, Moms Advocating Sustainability, Yardsmart Marin, Sonoma SASS, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Nontoxic Communities, and North County Equity and Justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Isabella Quinonez on behalf of the California Farm Bureau we respect the author's amendments, but we are still opposing this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2552 will move to suspense.

What we're going to do is go back to the bills that we did do pass on. And then we have one more that we can hear going back to AB 1777 by assemblymember Ting. The motion was do pass. And please call the roll.

Jones. Jones. Aye. Seven to zero.

That bill is out. Seven to zero. And then now we'll take up moving to almost the end of the calendar. AB 3138 by Assemblymember Wilson. And my understanding, Senator Bradford, is you're going to be presenting that bill. Very good. This is a do pass motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of Assemblymember Wilson, I'm here for 3138, which would modify an existing digital license plate program to allow drivers the option to purchase an alternative device to a license plate or registration card that includes vehicle location technology beginning in 2027. As you know, this test pilot has been in existence for 10 years.

And I'll just quickly speak to the fiscal. For over a decade, the DMV is offering some form of alternative devices through the pilot program, and the fiscal impact by the Department is anticipated to be minor or absorbable. Again, they've been doing this for 10 years with no problem. So here to testify more specifically is Esteban Nunez.

On behalf of reviver.

Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Espan Nunez. I'm here on behalf of reviver just to keep it short and sweet. As the Senator said, this bill adds additional guardrails for the use of alternative devices which DMV says can be absorbable.

They're still in the process of doing the regulations to formalize the program, and so they feel that they could, while those regulations are still open, still add to them in this manner. In addition to that, this bill seeks to streamline compliance, which would save the Department money and time over time.

And so we appreciate the Committee and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here that would like to test Ryan support? How about in opposition?

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action and opposition AB 3138 has significant cost liabilities for California. The first is revenue loss. GPS tracker Digital license plate company that California is contracted with has committed documented malfeasance in Michigan by, among other things, failing to check for vehicle registration status before putting registration on the plates.

If they do so again in California, this will again result in revenue loss to the state due to tax avoidance. Additionally, it puts California at risk for lawsuit liability. The same company has already experienced a hack where the hacker was easily able to access the real time location of every plate with the GPS tracker.

The state could be liable if there's a second breach, creating potentially millions of dollars in lawsuit liability for the state.

Additionally, there are ripple effect costs to the state associated with turning license plates into GPS tracking devices that increase risk to survivors of domestic violence, people coming to California for abortions or gender affirming care, LGBTQ teens and others who may face harm for turning off the GPS tracking.

For example, a report by Tulane University and UC San Diego found that in 2022 alone, domestic violence cost California nearly $74 billion. Authorizing GPS in digital license plates would increase risk to a person whose partner abuses them, especially to people in rural areas with no access to public transportation.

Their part worker would know, for example, if they took a car to the domestic violence service provider, but they could also face dangerous consequences for turning off the GPS tracker, putting them in a catch 22.

These risks are why we joined with domestic violence, LGBTQI, reproductive justice, youth and privacy organizations in working to prohibit GPS trackers digital license plates. A 2022 agreement that this bill walks. Back thank you very much.

Hello, Danny Cando-Kaiser on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in respectful opposition, I'll focus my comments on the fiscal burdens. First, the rulemaking that DMV has already done would not adequately address changes this bill would create. It would instead require additional DMV rulemaking, incurring associated costs.

Second, recent bill amendments grandfather in existing GPS tracker digital license plates, creating a conflict with the author's prior legislation, AB 984.

Per the requirements in sub paragraph a of paragraph two of the subdivision of a of Section 485 of the vehicle code as added in AB 984, these license plates were supposed to be recalled by January 1 of this year.

This indicates that the vendor reviver and DMV have already failed to follow state law on this issue. Lastly, reviver has already experienced one alarming security breach in its systems and has recently further demonstrated issues by failing to follow state law and its contractual obligations with the State of Michigan.

Michigan is terminating its contract with reviver after only two years. If this is repeated in California, it would result in additional and unknown DMB costs to recall and replace the plates. We respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else?

Department of Finance no file? Okay. Seeing no questions or comments, you may.

Conclude as stated, this strengthens the privacy issues that they were speaking of and protections, and requires the DMV to issue a report to the Legislature allows drivers to continue using the GPS enabled alternative devices that were previously authorized. So again, the costs of this bill are minor, inexorable, and I respectfully ask for a high vote.

The recommendation is I do pass motion on this. Is there a motion? Okay, there is a motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That Bill is out six to one. Thank you for presenting that bill, Senator. We're going to move on to AB 2496 by Assemblymember Pellerin, who has waived presentation. Anyone here like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate.

So without objection, AB 2496 will move to suspense. We previously heard AB 2498. So we're going to move on to AB 20515 by Assemblymember Papin, who has waived presentation. Anyone here like to testify in support?

Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Santa Rosa and the City of Roseville's Environmental Utilities Department in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Well, it's Donnelly with cleanearthforkids.org opposes AB 20515 unless amended along with the following other organizations: Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, CEH Center for Environmental Health, Sonoma County Youth Action Committee, NCCCA Ecosustainability Peeps, and SCSEQUEL, Grandparents Taking Action and North County Equity and Justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 20515 will move to suspense AB 2560 by Assembly Member Alvarez, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support?

Anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Wes Donnelly, cleanearth4kids.org, opposing AB 2560 along with the following organizations. Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, CEH, Ecosustainability Peeps, NCCCA, SD Sequel, Grandparents Taking Action, and North County Equity and Justice.

Thank you very much.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in strong opposition.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elisa Arcidiacono, on behalf of the Cities of Laguna Beach, Pismo Beach, Newport Beach, Oceanside, Lafayette, Half Moon Bay, Del Mar, and Morro Bay, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Kira Rosoff on behalf of the Cities of Coronado and Solana Beach, in opposition.

Thank you.

Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Carlsbad, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Department of Finance?

No file.

Seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2560 will move to suspense. AB 2783 by Assemblymember Alvarez, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance. The Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this measure. The California State Lands Commission estimates minor costs of roughly $50,000 annually from the General Fund to implement the provisions of this Bill. Those costs would be recouped through a reimbursement agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District.

This Bill may create a state reimbursable mandate in the range of $100,000 to $1 million because it requires a district to dedicate 2% of its annual gross maritime industrial operating revenue to address off tideland impacts from the district's operations.

Finance is opposed to this Bill because it may create a state reimbursable mandate and create additional General Fund costs that were not included in the 2024 budget.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2783 we'll move to suspense. Moving on to AB 2638 by assemblymember Ward, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

About in opposition Department of Finance no file seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2638 we'll move to suspense. AB 2893 by Assembly Member Ward, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is currently opposed to this measure. A fiscal estimate from the Department of Health Care Services was not available at the time of this analysis. However, based on the bill's provisions, finance preliminarily estimates that it would likely result in costs the low millions of dollars General Fund annually for DHCS to establish a certification process.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates that the Bill could create a minimum of $436,000 General Fund cost annually to certify subcontractor facilities. Additionally, CDCR indicates that the Bill certification requirements could create General Fund cost pressures and the Low millions annually for CDCR.

Further, the Interagency Council on Homelessness indicates that workload associated with this Bill requires four positions and $705,000.0 one time General Fund in 2025 - 26 and $673,000.01 time General Fund in 2026 to 27.

Finance is opposed to this Bill because it results in ongoing General Fund costs not included in the state spending plan, including potentially significant Proposition 30, state reimbursable costs.

Very good. They're seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2893. We'll move to suspense AB 3093 by assemblymember Ward, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to test fine support? How about in opposition?

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the cities of Solana Beach and the Marin County Council of mayors and council Members, in respectful opposition unless amended.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League off California Cities Within opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Good morning. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the Cities of Corona and Carlsbad in opposition and the City of Rancho Cucamonga with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Department of Finance no file seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 3093 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 26772 by Assembly Member Petrie Norris, who has waived presentation.

Is there anybody here who would like to testify in support of the Bill? Testify in opposition, Department of Finance no file seeing no comments or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2672 will move to suspense. AB 2902 by Assemblymember Wood, who has waived presentation.

Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Testify and opposition.

Department of Finance the Department of Finance. Is currently opposed to this Bill. Cowercycle estimates the Bill costs $345,000 from greenhouse gas Reduction Fund ongoing to support two positions responsible for implementing the requirements.

Ibank notes that they can work with calacycle to enhance their understanding of options available and conduct basic coordination with various recyclers with a minor and observable fiscal impact. However, if Cal recycle is expecting the Ibank to consult as to what is the best financing for each deal, this will result in General Fund costs currently unknown.

The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill because it results in ongoing greenhouse gas reduction Fund costs not included in the multi year cap and trade expenditure plan of the 2024 budget agreement and creates additional General Fund cost pressures.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, this is a suspense file candidate so without objection, AB 2902 will move to suspense. AB 2903 by Assemblymember Hoover, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition?

Department of Finance? Seeing no comments or questions by the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2903 will move to suspense. AB 3061 by Assemblymember Haney who has waived presentation. Anyone here like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

Seeing no questions or concerns from the Committee right now. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3061 will move to suspense. We already took up AB 3138. So we'll move on to AB 3238 by Assemblymember Garcia. Assemblymember Garcia has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

About in opposition?

I'm sorry. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and support. Thank you.

Very good. You were hiding behind the pole. In support or in opposition? Either way, opposition please.

Wes Donnelly with cleanroom.org comma opposing AB 3238 also opposing our facts. California nurses for Environmental Health Injustice Center for Environmental Health Ecosustainability peeps NCCA St sequel grandparents taking action North County equity and justice and non toxic communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to testify either in opposition or support? Seeing none. Department of Finance no file. Very good. Seeing no further comment or questions from the Committee. This is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3238 will move to suspense. So that concludes our hearing for today.

I want to thank everybody who came to testify and participated in this process. And we are adjourned. Thank you very much.