Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Hi, everyone. How's everyone doing today? Okay. Good morning. Welcome to the May 14,2025 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 327 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. Before we begin, I have a some housekeeping notes to cover. AB 1165, Gipson is pulled by Committee for today's hearing.

AB 1048 is pulled by the author. Chen is pulled by the author. And AB 1387, Quirk-Silva is being pulled by Committee as well. All for today's hearing. So we encourage the public to write written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov of. I'll be right back.

Sorry, everyone. We're back on track. Okay. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website.

We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waved 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 love to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. All right. With that, I would love to dispense with the consent calendar. We will take this up in two different motions. The first motion is do pass to consent applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this Committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with the Assembly rules. We have a motion on this. We have a motion. And a second.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The Second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this Committee that are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a Sec? Do we have a motion on this? Great. Well, we got a motion and a Second. Okay, couple Seconds.

[Consent Calendar]

Those are all out on an a roll call. Okay with that. Let's see. We have. Up next, we have our Madam Majority Leader, Ms. Aguiar Curry. You are presenting AB260 and AB904. Feel free to begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for your Committee staff work on this Bill. AB 260 is an important proposal to protect and safeguard safe and legal reproductive health care here in California.

Since the Dobbs decision, other states have been restricting or banning abortion care and people's ability to make decisions over their own bodies. And the Federal Government has made cuts to critical funding. AB 260 is in response to these very real threats. It protects access to medication abortion here in California.

Specifically mifepristone, a common and safe medication abortion drug first approved by the FDA in 2000. This Bill also provides critical protections in California for medical professionals helping their patients get the health care they need.

As noted in the Committee's analysis, the bill's fiscal impact is mostly minor and absorbable, making it practical investment for our state to ensure California's constitutional rights remain in place. This Bill is a proactive and low cost steps towards protecting the rights of Californians and their health care providers.

AB 260 proves that defending our freedom doesn't have to come at a high cost. With me today to testify in support is Angela Pontiz with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Angela Pontes, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Here today representing the seven Planned Parenthood affiliates across the state, serving patients from every county through 115 community health centers. Here today in strong support of AB 260 as a proud co sponsor.

Though medication abortion has been used by millions of people for a quarter of a century and decades of research shows that it is safe and effective. Attacks on access and the providers who offer this care persist through proactive policy.

AB 260 safeguards access to medication abortion in California by protecting against federal interference with the current practice of medicine in this state. Further, AB 260 increases access to reproductive health care through telehealth in the MediCal program and it protects providers by removing their name from mifepristone prescription labels.

Federal efforts to restrict medication abortion are dangerous and cruel and a direct attack on our state's constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Thank you for your consideration of this policy. We ask for your aye vote.

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

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs. Here today on behalf of the co sponsor Reproductive Freedom for All. In support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9 co sponsors of the measure. In support.

Madam Chair and Members, Anthony Molina on behalf of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine a co sponsor and proud support. Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

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

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. That is out on AB roll call.

Thank you. And now AB 904.

Once again, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. California's child care subsidy program is a critical support for working families. But under current law, families can lose access to subsidized care due to gaps in eligibility rules.

If a parent is not actively working or in training, they can lose their care even if they are on pregnancy leave, caring for a family member or searching for employment. This bill will clarify. It will clarify child care eligibility rules to better support families when they are taking family leave or searching for employment.

It also reduces the bureaucratic barriers, making it easier for parents to verify their status and maintain their child care during these important times. The cost for this bill are minor and absorbable. Thank you very much. And I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Great. And witnesses in support? No. Okay. Anyone in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? Any me toos in opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to committee. Any questions? No. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Great. Thank you very much.

And that is out on a B roll call with Ms. Dixon voting I and Mr. Ta not voting.

Great. Thank you very much. I really respect all the work, hard work you guys are doing right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Aguiar-Curry.

Next we will move on to Mr. Rogers. You are presenting AB 1014. You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. AB 1014 gives more flexibility to Caltrans to set speed limits in state highways that run through particularly rural communities. As noted in the analysis, the cost is minor and absorbable, which I think is all of our favorite words these days.

Great. Minor and absorbable. It's like a band name. Do we have any primary witnesses in support? Any additional me toos in support?

Kasha Hunt here with Nossoman on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Additional me toos in opposition. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions?

We have a motion. Motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for the I vote. Thank you, everybody.

That is out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Dixon voting no, and Mr. Tangipa voting I. Thank you. Okay, we have Ms. Quirk-Silva is not here. Right? Signed in. Not here. Okay, move on to Ms. Nguyen. You're representing AB 46.

Members. If I can draw your attention to the two TVs here for a quick 15 minute presentation. Just kidding. I'm here to present AB 46, a bill that restores balance to the way court makes decision on mental health diversion cases. AB 46 clarifies that courts have discretion in every case.

They may deny diversion when treatment in the community would endanger public safety. Here to testify. Actually, here to answer any technical questions is Rochelle Beardsley from the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office with me.

Thank you. Morning. And did you want to make any presentation or just here for technical questions? Okay, great. Thank you. Do we have any other folks in the room that wish to express support? Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee.

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

Respectfully ask for your I vote.

We're going to put this on call for now. We have to wait for a couple more folks to come to committee, but we will take it up when they get here. Thank you. And let's see, who do we have next? Ms. Kaloza, who's not here. Ms. Quirk-Silva, who's. Oh, right. She's on the committee.

Sorry, you signed in. I'm gonna. I'm gonna wait until we take folks from, members from the audience. Okay. Mr. Bennet.

Good morning, chair and members. AB 1430 is a simple bill that helps our county recorder fees catch up with inflation. I have Mr. Rob Gowler on behalf of the County Recorders Association here for any technical questions.

Great, thank you. Any other folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? Any me toos at all? Okay, great. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? No, we have a motion. And a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Bennett?

Respectfully asked for an I vote.

Great. That is out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Sanchez voting no and Ms. Dixon voting I. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Why don't we go. I don't know who was next. I don't know who was between the two of you guys. Who was first, Ms. Papan or Mr. Carillo? Who was first? Mr. Carillo.

Step up to the plate.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

You may begin.

I have two. I'm going to start with AB 735, if that's okay. I'm here to present AB 735, which is a follow up to AB 98 from last year. The Bill in print addresses a number of issues, including the following: it ensures that existing affordable housing requirements are not replaced by the affordable housing language in AB 98.

Makes clear that AB 98 provisions do not apply to certain port properties or agricultural uses. Provides more time for small cities and counties to update their circulation element, and it gives the Attorney General discretion to work with local governments that are that are working in good faith to comply with AB 98.

Members, this is a very challenging issue with passionate stakeholders on all sides. We have elected to not have a lead witness in support, but instead, I would like to take a moment to thank all the stakeholders that have come forward with their concerns and their ideas to help ensure we get this right.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

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

No, ma'am.

Any folks else who wish to express support in the room? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional "Me Toos" in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Questions, comments, motions, seconds? Okay. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Great. And AB 735 is out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Sanchez voting "No." Thank you. And would you like to move on to AB 645?

645. Thank you again for Assembly Bill 645. This bill seeks to improve emergency medical services by recording EMS dispatchers to complete emergency medical dispatch training. Dispatchers are often the first responders, the first voice. A person learns how to help a life or death. Emergency EMD training.

Dispatchers can talk to people through how to perform life saving like CPR and the heimlich maneuver. As the saying goes, second saves lives. And the steps that are taken while waiting emergency responders is very often the difference between life and death. And I respectfully asked for an I vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses in support? No. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional me toos of any variety? Great. We have a motion second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. That is out on an A roll call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Next we have Ms. Papan, you're presenting AB 1413. You can begin when you're ready.

Can you hear me? Oh, dear lord. Can't not hear me. Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm here to talk about SGMA, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The state thus far. SGMA became in effect in 2014. The state thus far spent $500 million on implementing SGMA.

This particular bill deals with the size of the pie, how much each pumper, not how much he pumped, how much in total can be pumped from a particular basin. And the determination of the size of the pie.

How much water can be pumped from a particular overdrafted basin is determined by a very long process with a lot of stakeholders and a lot of technical input. And after the locals determine their GSP groundwater sustainability plan, that plan is then reviewed at the state and it also goes through a validation process.

And what we've been seeing has happened in some of the basins is that you have some unhappy pumpers who want to revisit the size of the pie, and they want to say, well, we should have a bigger pie. You can still go to court and fight about your size of the pie. But this bill addresses.

Let's keep the size of the pie and the process that it went through in place and give it some deference as it goes into court, because the best form for determining the size of the pie is at the local level, where you have stakeholders and.

And science and all these good things to determine what the size of the pie should be. This bill is consistent with the legislative intent of SGMA, which was that the court manage any proceedings about the size of the pie determinations in a manner that minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

The opposition has tried to argue that this bill interferes with their rights, but we. We would say it doesn't because you can still come in and argue about your size of the pie, and then they'll also make some arguments about, well, this violates their due process.

But actually, when you determine the size of the pie, it goes through a long, as I just explained, process, and also a validation proceeding where you can object to the size of the pie. We just don't want it to be where you come in, though, and.

And we reopen the determination of the size of the pie in all ways. I have seen some proposed amendments. I will continue to work with the other side. I. This is a bill about really ultimately saving California money. So we don't have a lot of duplicative proceedings.

And people go on for years and years to fight about the size of the pie. It really will save money. I request. Supposed to request an I vote on 1413. With me today is Michael Jared from the Nature Conservancy, who has just a few brief remarks.

Great, thank you.

Oh, you turn the mic on. Yeah.

Can you hear me now? Yeah. Michael Jarred with The Nature Conservancy. We're proud to support AB 1413 and thank the author for her leadership and her testimony has made me hungry for pie, so I'll try to be brief so I can get to dealing with that.

TNC has engaged in the SGMA process and is committed to seeing it succeed. TNC has developed science to better understand what groundwater levels are necessary to sustain communities. Priority species and ecosystems is concerned when adjudications seek to alter the sustainable yield to allow additional pumping through a non scientific process.

AB 1413 provides further clarification of on the roles of adjudication by prohibiting a court from adopting a sustainable yield in an adjudication proceeding if such a yield allows more total pumping on an annual basis than the average sustainable yield as was established in a validated groundwater sustainability plan covering the basin.

Importantly, the language does not limit the ability of a plaintiff to seek judicial review of all or a portion of the plan, preserving the rights of interested parties to bring in action if they feel the plan is inadequate.

We think this strikes a good balance and ensures that all the funding we've spent to implement these plans can still go to the right mark. For all these reasons, we urge your I vote on AB 1413. Thank you.

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

Respect the request an I vote. Thank you for your time.

That is out on a B roll call with Mr. Arambula not voting. Yes. Okay. Out on a B roll call with Mr. Arambula not voting.

I believe, Mr. Connolly, you are next. I don't actually have the up-to-date sheet, but I think I saw you come in next. Come on up. And you're presenting AB 929. You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Proud to present AB 929 today. There can be no doubt as to the incredible impact that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA, is having on all water users in California's overdrafted basins. Managed wetlands are a critical natural resource for our state. Unfortunately, only 5% of California's historic wetlands remain.

And nearly 85% of Californians depend, in whole and part, on groundwater for their public water supply. That percentage increases even more for small water systems, which have fewer than 3,300 connections and service communities whose access to clean drinking water is most at risk.

These disadvantaged communities usually depend on a single source for their water supply, leaving them vulnerable to drought or over pumping by their neighbors. This Bill offers a modest and reasonable step toward protecting safe and clean water accessibility for our communities.

The Bill temporarily exempts small community water systems and managed wetlands, which make up less than 2% of the groundwater use in the Central Valley, from pumping reductions and fines under SGMA, to ensure that vulnerable communities and wildlife have safe and affordable water supplies.

The Bill only exempts the amount of groundwater historically required to support small community water systems, or to annually flood managed wetlands. Any increase over the historical amount is subject to regulation by GSAs. Going forward, AB 929 will require GSPs to include the plan's impact on water supplies for wetlands and small communities to ensure their needs are met.

With the amendments taken in the previous Committee, this Bill will sunset in three years. Last year, as well as this year, the opposition has raised concerns that this Bill violates Prop 26 and Prop 218. I will highlight, again, that our legislative council has stated this Bill does not violate either.

And I'm happy to share that opinion with your offices. With me to testify briefly today is Michael Chen with Audubon California.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Chen with Audubon California. We believe this Bill is very necessary to—as a first step to reverse habitat loss and our bird population loss. It is also our belief that this Bill is minor and resortable and will not result in additional cost to the Department and the state. Thank you so much. Ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Great. Any additional folks in the room in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Members? Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Connolly?

Respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Great. That's out on the roll call. And I think we had Mr. Ward up next. Mr. Ward, you are presenting AB 930. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, AB 930 is before you to ensure that all vote by mail ballots postmarked by election day and received within seven days would be counted. The Bill updates California's elections code to reflect our modern voting system and create small but likely absorbable costs for counties. Here in support for questions only is Rob Gloskouser.

On behalf of the client, the California Associations of Clerks and Elections Officials and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Did you wish to make comment or just here for technical questions? There might be a lot of technical questions coming at you. So any other folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? Any technical questions for our witness or our author? We have a motion a second. Great.

Would you like to close, Mr. Ward?

Respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. That's out on the B roll call. Thank you. We have. Mr. Kalra, you are up next. You are representing AB 1202. And this is on suspense. And you're here for presentation only, I believe. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Yes. I just wanted to present. Just to clear up a little misinformation. AB 1022 appeals the authority to immobilize and tow vehicles solely to collect unpaid parking tickets. These poverty tows are harmful, costly, unconstitutional.

I just wanted the opportunity to respond to the UC and CSU higher education segments of $1 million and $1.5 million, respectively in estimates. These numbers are not only misleading, they don't come from any basis of fact. They're just generalizations that are unscientifically made.

And under AB 1022, UC and CSU campuses retain parking enforcement tools, including ticketing, signage and public safety tows, all of which apply to vehicles with out of state license plates.

Campuses already use their existing permitting systems to control parking, including by towing vehicles, as shown by this UC Berkeley sign, which actually uses a different vehicle, different vehicle code section than we're even addressing in this legislation. So that authority doesn't go anywhere, especially those really important permit parking programs that exist.

This does not impact any of those campuses. We are only repealing the toes based upon unpaid parking tickets, which do not actually. Do not actually help with debt collection. We shared evidence and policy committee how costly these towing programs are and how alternative debt collection methods are more effective.

Additionally, as the analysis mentions, in 2023 the first district of the Court of Appeals ruled it is unconstitutional to tow a vehicle solely for unpaid parking tickets.

If higher education segments wish to continue towing for unpaid parking tickets, they're opening themselves up to major litigation that will not only have significant costs for our campuses, but also to our state and our taxpayers. The CSU communicated to us after the court ruling that they would no longer tow under this authority.

And as you will hear from our sponsors, at least five UC campuses do not tow under this authority. UC Davis, Riverside, Irvine, San Diego and Santa Cruz. And in fact, UC Santa Barbara shared that they have towed 31 vehicles in two and a half years and collected zero parking debt on those tows.

So these towing programs do not work for their what might be perceived intended purpose. It is not accurate to say that this bill will result in revenue loss and it is not accurate to say the bill result in costs for them to put up signage and start permitting.

The reality is if this bill fails, these cities and campuses are still not permitted to tow for unpaid parking tickets alone. But passing AB 1022 will provide clarity and statewide uniformity. With me to provide supporting testimony is Rebecca Miller, Senior Staff Attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you, Madam Chair and honorable committee. The real. I'm from Western sun on law and poverty and the real cost of these toes is the devastating financial and emotional toll that they have on low income Californians undermining our state's goal to make things more affordable and equitable.

As mentioned by Assemblymember Kalra, recent court cases have found that towing vehicles solely to collect parking tickets is unconstitutional. And while this has accelerated cities move away from using these tows.

The reality is that this trend started earlier and that is because there are more cost effective methods to collect parking tickets and dozens of other authorities to tow a vehicle based on public safety. One of those is the is the existing law that is on this UC Berkeley sign that we have.

And this is where we think there's a confusion with the UC and the CSU campuses and they have a misunderstanding about what law this is we're impacting because first of all we've been doing public record acts requests and as you heard, five of the UCs have confirmed that they're not towing for unpaid tickets.

Only one campus said that they are Santa Barbara. They've done four of these tows in the last two and a half years and have collected $0. Second, the existing law already gives the campuses authority to tow vehicles that don't comply with the campus rules like permanent permit only parking lots.

And this includes vehicles with out of state plates. AB 1022 does not make any changes to this authority. The UC's cost figure is based on the assumption without the threat of being towed for unpaid tickets, students with out of state plates would not buy parking permits and the UCs would lose this revenue.

But the UCs told us they did not consider that existing law allows them to tow out of these permit only lots. So they're taking another look at it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks wish to express opposition and or any other opinion? Okay, well, thank you for your presentation, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity.

Always. And next we have Ms. Bauer-Kahan, you are next. Ms. Bauer-Kahan. And you are. You have no witnesses. I have a feeling you'll be able to handle it. And you're sending AB 290 and AB 302. Which one would you like to do first?

Okay.

I'm proud to present AB 290, a measure that improves consumer protection by requiring the California Fair Plan to create automatic payments. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Great. Any additional folks wish to express support?

Robert Harrell, with the Consumer Federation of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express opposition? Any questions from Committee? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your "Aye" vote.

That is out on an A roll call.

AB 302 is a bill that increases medical data protections. Thank you, chair and staff, for everything. You do every day. With that, I respectfully asked for an I vote.

Any additional folks wish to express support? You got to walk fast up to the mic.

Ryan Spencer, the American College OBGYN district 9 in support.

Thank you. Anyone who wish to express opposition? Going once, going twice. Okay, bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you everyone.

And that is out on a B roll call. Thank you, Ms. Bauer-Kahan. Up next we have Mr Valencia.

Up next, we have Mr. Valencia. You are presenting AB 1303. You can begin when you're ready. Oh, can you turn the mic on, please?

There you go.

There we go.

Thank you. Muy buenos Dias, Members and Madam Chair. AB 1303 aims to increase participation in the California Lifeline Program by specifying that a Social Security Number is not needed to qualify. With me to answer any technical questions, if there are any, Adria Tinnin, the Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at TURN.

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

Thank you. This Bill has no cost to the General Fund. I respectfully ask for your "Yes" vote.

I love no cost to the General Fund. That is out on a B roll call. Thank you. Okay, I don't see any other authors in the audience. Ms. Caloza, would you like to go next? You are presenting AB 920.

Good morning, Chair Wicks, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 920, which aims to streamline housing approvals in California by creating a centralized application portal to track housing projects in cities and counties over 150,000 residents.

AB 920 directly responds to a lack of transparency by requiring local governments to offer a centralized application portal that allows applicants to track and manage their permits all in one place. I hope you all join me in being part of our housing solution and our housing crisis. And AB 920 is a critical step in that process.

With me to support this Bill today is Holly Fraumeni from Abundant Housing LA.

Lighthouse Public Affairs, proud co sponsor of Abundant Housing Los Angeles. I'm proud to see that this Bill is identified in the FastTrack housing package. Just here to answer any technical questions and urge your support.

Great. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, California SPUR Circulate San Diego and California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express 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 for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate your leadership in this space and jumping into the housing fray as a freshman. And I'm a proud co author. So we're really happy to move the Bill out today. And Senate's on its way to the floor and hopefully on its way to the Governor's desk.

And with that, it's out on an A roll call.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And we have. Ms. Berner, you are next. Perfect timing. And you are presenting the Committee's Bill, AB 1532.

Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1532 on behalf of the Committee of Communications and Conveyance. This committee omnibus bill includes several relevant policies relevant to the jurisdiction of the CNC Committee.

First, the bill extends the funding authority for two existing programs, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Service Program and the Transportation Network Company Access for All Program. Both programs are administered by the CPUC benefit disabled Californians with accessing telecommunications and wheelchair transportations. The acts this bill does not increase any existing surcharges or consumer fees and is revenue neutral.

Lastly, this bill includes two accountability measures for the CPUC commissioners. The bill would require CPUC commissioners to be available at the request of a legislative committee chair. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the CPUC has refused to make commissioners available when requesting oversight committee hearings.

And the bill would also require the CPUC to adopt rules governing commissioner attendance at meetings to encourage greater participation in the agency's hearings. The these new policies would have a negligible fiscal impact. I politely request your I vote on this bill and welcome any questions.

I love the politely, politely request.

Normally. Normally respectfully. But this morning it's before 10, so I'm asking politely.

Okay, I'll take it. Any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express an opinion? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close.

Respectfully and politely ask for an I vote.

Respectfully and politely. Great. With that. That is out with Republicans not voting. With Ms. Dixon voting I. Thank you, Ms. Boerner. Okay. Ms. Boerner is always polite and respectful. I know that. Mr. Jackson, would you like to present now? I'm glad that made your day, Mr. Jackson. And Mr. Jackson, I believe you are. Oh, sorry.

We're gonna do a quick vote change on AB 1532. Right. That's out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Dixon not voting. Yes. Okay, perfect. All right, Mr. Jackson, you are presenting only I believe. Yes. You are presenting ACA 4.

For presentation only.

Rudely and aggressively, I am presenting ACA4. Okay. Today I'm presenting ACA4, the housing opportunity Made Equal Act. The homelessness and housing availability and affordability. One of the most pressing issues facing our constituents today. This ACA would increase and stabilize funding for affordable housing in California.

And California faces a well documented shortage of 1.5 to 2 million housing units, pushing median house income - home prices - above 800,000. The high cost of housing in California is one of the primary drivers of California's high supplemental poverty rate, which is ranked first in the country, placing millions of Californians at risk of homelessness.

ACA 4 would establish a dedicated long term investment in housing solutions while allocating 5% of the General Fund annually for 10 years to initiatives addressing homelessness and affordable housing. Currently, California allocates about $1 billion a year to affordable housing.

Although affordable housing production has doubled in the past five years, the state is only funding 12% of what is needed to meet its goals. At the end of the day, if we continue to go at the pace we are in, we are creating significant burdens on the next generation, let alone our current constituents.

Today, we are not on track to solving this problem. And if we are going to do it, we need to do it in a serious way to make sure that we are actually solving the problem, not just nibbling at it today. In support is Mimi Khalili from AG Global Solutions.

Great. You can begin.

Thank you, Chair Wicks and Members of the Committee. My name is Mimi Khalili with AG Global Solutions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this critical issue. California faces a staggering housing and homelessness crisis that grows worse each year.

As of 2024, we know that on any given night, an estimated 187,000 people are experiencing homelessness in our state, an all-time high. Despite this humanitarian emergency, our response has unfortunately been inadequate. Consider these facts. The rising homelessness. California spends roughly $1 billion per year on homelessness programs. Yet the number of unhoused residents continues to climb.

We are seeing only marginal progress even as encampments expand in every community. Underfunded housing goals. Each year, California permanently houses roughly 5,000 people with various state funded programs like Home Key and Veterans housing programs, thanks to the commitment of lawmakers who have fought to expand these proven solutions.

But despite these efforts, twice that number of people fall into homelessness annually. Meaning we set a net increase of up to 11,000 more people annually without homes each year. The problem isn't the effectiveness of our programs. It's that we are not investing at the scale needed to make the, to meet the demand. Programs are over subscribed.

The state is currently funding only 12% of what is needed to meet our affordable housing production goal of 2.5 million new homes by 2020. Sorry, 2030. In other words, we have a plan on paper to build the housing California needs, but we are barely financing a tenth of it. The message is clear.

Our current level of investment is far below what is required. Without a dramatic change, homelessness will continue to rise and the costs, both human and fiscal, will continue to mount. We often frame homelessness as a moral issue, and it is. But it also is very much a fiscal issue. Failing to house people isn't just heartbreaking, it's expensive.

Homelessness drives huge costs in emergency medical care, law enforcement, and other crisis services. Every dollar we fail to invest in housing now means many more dollars spent reacting to homelessness on the back end. By contrast, investing in housing and homelessness prevention yield significant savings.

Multiple studies have shown that for every one dollar invested in affordable housing and preventative services, taxpayers save several times that in avoided costs. We save on emergency room visits, hospitalizations, shelter stays, police and jail expenses, and more.

In fact, conservative analyses find that at least there's a 5 to 1 return on such an investment in the form of reduction reduced burdens on our health care and justice systems. This means if we spend the money to house a family or stabilize an individual today, we avoid spending far more handling the consequences of homelessness tomorrow.

ACA4 capitalizes on this fiscal logic by constitutionally dedicating 5% of California's General Fund revenues annually for the next 10 years to housing and homelessness solutions. ACA4 provides the scale and reliability of funding we need.

5% of the General Fund will provide a major infusion that will enable us to house tens of thousands of people currently on the streets and prevent tens of thousands more from falling into homelessness.

In short, ACA4 will not only humanely house people and boost affordable housing construction, it will pay for itself many times over by slashing the expensive emergency reactions that are draining public resources. The truth is, California has waited far too long to make this kind of commitment.

For over a decade, leaders have debated how to address homelessness, but comprehensive action has been elusive. Meanwhile, the crisis has only deepened. We cannot afford another decade of delay. If you could wrap up. Sorry about that. ACA4, the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act is an investment in California's future.

And I'm here to help answer any questions you may have on the research that each of your offices has received.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other additional folks in the room that wish to express support or any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. David Bollog from Los Angeles County. Well, I do appreciate the optimism and the forward thinking of the witness, in LA County, we have $24 billion that have been allocated and we are seeing zero, not zero, but very little results. Cost overrun.

We're seeing a lot of overhead until that can be taken care of, until we can see some results of the money already being spent, which, in my opinion, we're not seeing, that I would oppose this. So thank you.

Thank you. And before I open up to Members, if there's questions, I just want to thank you, Mr. Jackson, for carrying this. I carried the first version of this in 2022, we were unable to get it across the finish line. But I do think when you look at it, this is a bold idea.

But we have a crisis that is metastasized into such a large issue that it requires bold thinking to solve the problems. And you know, they say your, your budget are your values. And I think this forces the question of what are our values? You know, where are we putting our money?

And I always appreciate your testimony in housing Committee and other places. So thank you for, for being here today.

And I know this is just presentation only, but I just want to be on the record, would love to join as a co-author of this effort and continue to push this boulder up the hill because we need that continued drumbeat on the need for money for affordable housing.

And this is money that goes to our families that most need it, that are most in need. I know currently right now we have 45,000 shovel-ready projects that if they had financing that would turn into homes for 45,000 families who are on the precipice of experiencing homelessness or who are experiencing homelessness.

So I just want to appreciate your continued continued effort in this space. And with that, I'm happy to open up any questions from Members of the Committee. Okay, and again, we're presentation only, but would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the three years that I've been here, this is the first time I felt necessary to come above before appropriations on such an important issue.

At the end of the day, if we are not providing housing, education, health care and food, we are not doing the basics of what a state is supposed to do. And many of us inherited this mess, but let us be the ones to actually solve it. And shame on us if we don't.

It's a big issue, but we will simply fail the next generation if we do not do this. Now. I respectfully ask for your consideration at appropriate time.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Appreciate you both. Thank you. Okay. With that, we will now go back to bills being presented for a vote. And I think Ms. Quirk-Silva, is that right? Yes, you are next.

You are presenting AB 956. You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 956 allows homeowners to build two detached Accessory Dwelling Units on a property, as long as they meet all existing requirements on size, height, and setbacks.

ADUs have become a critical tool for creating more housing across California and are one of the few options to provide flexibility, affordability, as a well, as well as allowing additional precious housing units. In recent years, we have passed several laws making ADUs easier to build, by removing unnecessary delays to help families move forward with housing plans.

However, there is still confusion. Homeowners continue to receive mixed messages by local governments about what they can build and what they cannot build. Some are told that they can build two units, but only if one is detached. There are some properties where a garage is actually not attached to a home but is still on the property.

The code for ADUs can be confusing depending on the city and also, very complex to navigate. In the state of Washington, homeowners are allowed to build up to 2 ADUs per lot. Very simple and clear.

It is a simple policy that recognizes that, that many properties, not all, but many, can support more housing without changing the character of a neighborhood. California continues to face a serious housing shortage, yet we continue to place limits that hold back progress. AB 956 is very simple. It provides clarity that you can build two detached ADUs on a property.

It ensures that homeowners who have the space and meet the rules can move forward with building two detached ADUs. It does not override local standards but simply removes the guesswork and helps families take action.

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

Not today.

Okay. Any additional folks in the room wish to express 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 folks in the room wish to express opposition, either primary or as a Me Too?

Good morning, again. David Bollog. In my own neighborhood, I did hear the author state that it's not changing the environment or the actual neighborhoods. In my own neighborhood, it has decreased the quality of my life—quality of life that we have in the 40th Assembly District of the San Fernando Valley.

With how many ADUs are being sprung up all over, it's causing a lot of street parking—it's the public transportation is not going to meet that as it did, so with that, I do oppose another ADU law that will override local authorities that have done years of planning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for support of this Bill.

And we have a motion. Motion and a second. Second. Ms. Quirk-Silva, I want to thank you for your work in the space—your tireless work in housing. I really like this Bill.

ADUs have been a real bright spot in terms of us solving our housing crisis, and we should do everything we can to make it easier to build ADUs. So, with that, I'd love to also be added as a co-author, if you'll have me. And that is out on a B roll call, with Mr. Tangipa not voting and Mr. Ta voting "Aye."

Thank you very much. And with that, I think we have Ms. Bonta is next, right? Or—I think Ms. Bonta is next. We'll say Ms. Bonta's next. And you are presenting AB 1318.

Correct. And good morning, chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 1318, which clarifies that nonprofit organizations with either federal or state tax exempt status that provide services to undocumented immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are eligible for public funding.

Nonprofit is currently defined in statute as having federal tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Recent federal legislation has targeted the federal tax exempt status of nonprofits serving our vulnerable populations. Additionally, executive orders and messaging from the White House have mirrored this strategy and rhetoric.

These measures are designed to block legal and social services to immigrants, undocumented residents, and asylum seekers by attacking the nonprofits that serve them. AB 1318 represents minor and absorbable costs to the state while providing critical clarity and protection to our nonprofit sector. With that, I respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any additional me toos in support? Ms. Fearing? I see you.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing. On behalf of CalNonprofits, we're pleased to sponsor AB 1318 and also Community Alliance with Family Farmers in strong support.

Great, thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition?

Hi, sorry, I'm not in opposition. I'm in support with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. CHIRLA. In strong support of this bill.

Perfect. Thank you. I know we're. We're moving fast, so. Oh, here's someone else running up to the mic. Okay.

So sorry. Thuy Do with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support.

Great, thank you. Any additional opinions on the bill from the audience? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second.

Would you like to close, Ms. Bonta?

Thank you. This is such an important time for every resident of California, our undocumented communities, our immigrant communities, to know that we are standing with them and this is our opportunity in California to stand up. With that, I respectfully request your I vote.

Deeply appreciate that sentiment and your leadership in this space. So thank you. And with that, that is out on a B roll call. Okay, I think we have Mr. Muratsuchi next. And you are presenting AB 49.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Committee Members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 49 to do everything in our power to keep ICE out of our California public schools. We know that for decades that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that students regardless of the immigration status have a constitutional right to attend public schools.

We also know that for decades that we've had bipartisan support to respect schools as a so called sensitive location to keep immigration enforcement activities out of our schools. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has recently reversed that long standing policy and started conducting these ICE raids at our schools.

We saw that recently in Los Angeles where LAUSD, you know, without necessary guidance from the State of California, they did the right thing, they turned the immigration officers away.

But we need to make sure that we are providing statewide guidance to all of our public schools to, to make sure that our students are safe, that they feel that they can come to school to learn and not to be afraid of being separated from their family members.

I am here joined by CHIRLA. Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, attorney with the CHIRLA Removal Defense Unit.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning chairmembers. My name is Nicolas Tomsoneras. I'm a Staff Attorney in the Removal Defense Unit at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles. The right for all students, regardless of immigration status to attend public school in the United States has been safeguarded ever since the Supreme Court opinion in Plyler V Doe in 1982.

In deciding Plyler, our highest court rejected a state government's bald faced efforts to create a permanently immiserated underclass excluded from education. The Department of Homeland Security's rescission of its sensitive locations memo, coupled with aggressive federal enforcement actions, threatens to take us where the Plyler case warned us that we should never go.

AB 49 helps to provide clarity, safety and peace of mind to children and all who care for them, including our state's teachers and administrators. For every substantiate, substantiated incident of, say, ICE forcing its way into schools to look for children under the false pretense of a welfare check, the immigration community is correspondingly devastated by its psychological aftershock.

It pains me to testify that the Federal Government's goal of inflicting mass terror has already started to succeed. We regularly field questions from clients who wonder if they should stop taking their children to school. I've seen parents forced to ask their young children to make a very adult choice: Are you willing to go to school knowing that you might never see me again?

I've counseled clients on how to prepare for that day where they, God forbid, are taking off the front steps of an elementary school and placed in detention, leaving a young student waiting for dad who isn't going to be in time for pickup that day.

This very thing happened to a California resident of 20 years, a father whose family contacted my office in a panic just a few weeks ago. It breaks my heart to see that my clients, parents and children alike, are forced to carry that fear. AB 49 is necessary.

AB 49 is not redundant, nor it is, nor is it an unlawful impingement on the Federal Government's ability to enforce its immigration laws. AB 49 protects the bodies and minds of our youngest and most vulnerable, as well as the hopes of those who yearn to see them succeed. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 49.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, please say name, organization and position.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman here on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. Proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Mandy Deese with Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in strong support.

Cameron Sasai on behalf of LEAD Filipino and strong support.

Alyssa Mamaclay on behalf of Fierce Coalition and South of Market Community Action Network. And strong support.

Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and strong support.

Yesenia Altamirano, Orange County organizer with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. In strong support.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. Proud co-sponsor along with CHIRLA. We're proud to support with Chinese for Affirmative Action and strong support.

Anna Tecsa, member of the CHIRLA. I support AB 49.

Hi, my name is Kelly Tecsa. I'm from the San Bernardino County, a high school student with CHIRLA, and I'm in strong support of this.

Good morning all. Pedro Trujillo, Director of Organizing with CHIRLA. Strong support of AB 49. I'm based in Los Angeles. Thank you.

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

Good morning again. My name is David Bollog. I have been a opposition to this Bill on regards to policy.

But since this is the appropriations, I want to recognize and point out to the Committee that the author has struck provisions that could have led to injury or legal issues with the employees of the school and create potential lawsuits to the school. This is my opinion.

By removing that, I think he has removed most if not all liabilities that may have resulted resulted by the from this Bill, thereby making a more suitable candidate for the passage through this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express opposition in the Committee? We will bring it back to the Committee. We have a comment.

Madam Chair, I want to move the Bill and just enthusiastically support this Bill in a community like mine, my district. This is imperative to protect our children, our students in our community and our schools. And I'm just happy that CHIRLA and all the advocates are supporting this. So that we are become a voice and amplify for our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a second. Any other comments, questions from Members? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I know our immigrant community right now is, is very frightened and scared. So anything we can do to provide security and certainty, certainly I am happy to support and I appreciate your leadership. So thank you. Thank you. And with that, let is out on a b-roll call. Mr. Muratsuchi, thank you.

And we have Mr. Haney up next with three bills, big size. I just heard "oh no, oh my gosh, three bills, I don't know" You're presenting AB 507, AB 1190 and AB 1470. You can begin which with whatever one you prefer.

All right. I'll start with AB 1190. Thank you, Chair and members. AB 1190 protects Californians, especially seniors, families, and low income individuals from excessive and hidden fees for DMV related services like car registration and title transfers.

Some DMV partners operate websites that look like the official DMV site, misleading consumers and charging up to $150 more than the actual DMV fee with little to no transparency. AB 1190 will address this by capping fees to no more than 5% above DMV rates and requir clear disclosures and links to the official DMV site.

This bill has bipartisan support, reflects a common sense approach to consumer protection, and it has a one time estimated cost of $125,000 from the Motor Vehicle Account to allow the DMV to update its website forms and regulations. With me today is Robert Harrell from the Consumer Federation of California.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members, Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation California. We're the sponsors of the measure, common sense measure. And consumers right now are being misled into thinking they're getting something for the price they would pay on the DMV website, but they're paying significant up charges. Appreciate the bipartisan support. Urge and I vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition or additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments? Nope. We have a motion. Oh, sorry, Ms. Dixon. I apologize.

Mr. Haney. It's a great bill. I've been a victim of that very same service. And I actually have a similar bill that would remove DMV from any service title that it gets searched. So thank you for bringing this forward. Cost me $150 when it should have costed $50 Yes. Somebody's getting rich. Thank you.

Yeah.

Would you like to close?

Yes, I think Assembly Member Jackson said it best. It takes a something pretty egregious to make you want to go to the DMV to get those services. That's what we're asking for here. Respect your support. Aye vote.

Yes. Great. So we have a motion, a second, and that's out on an a roll call. Thank you.

All right. AB 1470 builds on the California Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund by allowing CSU and UC and community colleges to use up to 20% of their loan funds to construct affordable student, faculty and staff housing in downtowns and main commercial or cultural districts. Post pand in Post pandemic.

Our downtowns are still struggling and could significantly benefit from more students living in their downtown city centers. We're already seeing that in some places, like with San Jose and San Jose State. By authorizing up to 20% of the awarded loan funds to be used for building affordable student, faculty and staff housing in downtown or commercial hubs.

This bill encourages urban revitalization by connecting housing investment with public transit, career opportunities and services. It is projected to have no cost to the state since it does not appropriate new funding. With me to testify in support of the bill is Scott Ford, the Deputy Director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership.

Good morning, Chair Wicks, Members of the Committee. Scott Ford, Deputy Director, Downtown Sacramento Partnership actually, California's original property based improvement district dating back to 1995 and honored to be here today.

And over the past year, we've had the good fortune of working closely with Assemblymember Haney and appreciate the vision the leadership of the Select Committee on Downtown Recovery as we look to recalibrate Downtown Sacramento.

Like downtowns across the the State of California, you know, we're trying to create diversified hubs of, yes, office, but also social activity, education and of course in close proximity to public transit.

Three of the key priority areas that have emerged is growing downtown University presence, creating densely populated urban villages, especially affordable housing, and then creating dynamic hubs of social and creative collisions that tend to happen when you put broad, bright minds together. AB 1470, it's a smart growth strategy. We strongly support it.

We think it accomplishes all three of these key priority areas wrapped into one. Assemblymember Haney mentioned the model in San Jose State with Spartan Village centrally located, that downtown has performed better than many other downtowns across the state. And I think the University presence and the housing that goes with that is a big part of it.

We're seeing this model replicated across the United States. Asu, downtown Phoenix campus, Purdue's moving into downtown Indianapolis. This is again, this is updating an outdated model in having universities removed from downtowns. Let's bring them centrally located and it is going to really drive innovation, economy and the recovery of California moving forward.

I enthusiastically believe in the Premise here with AB 1470. Respectfully and politely ask for your Aye vote today.

A lot of respect and politeness in Committee today, by the way. I just want to point out you guys are twins. You planned it out, you planned it recorded. You called each other this morning to make it all work. Great. Any additional folks wish to express support in the room? Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Any additional folks in opposition. Okay with that, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any. We have a motion and a second, would you like to close any? No. Over here. Sorry. Mistakes and anything? No. Okay. Just double checking. Okay, great. Okay. Mr. Haney, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Great. So first of all, I just love all the work you're doing on the downtown space and you've flagged this for me. And we've had conversations about the idea of bringing more students into our downtown, specifically in conversations around the housing bond. So I'm just appreciative of it.

And I love this new model and thank you for continuing to like the drumbeat on keeping our downtowns vibrant and recovering. So I just appreciate that. And with that it is out on an a roll call with Mr. Tangipa not voting. So.

All right.

And actually before you begin, I need to do two quick vote changes before I get to your last bill on AB 1190. Your previous bill that is out on the a roll call with with Mr. Tangipa voting no on that. And then also I want to just go back really quickly to AB46. Ms.

Wynn that is out on an a roll call with Mr. Hart not voting and Ms. Elhawary voting no. Okay, with that you can begin on your last bill.

Great. AB 507 will accelerate office to housing conversion projects by creating a pathway for by-right approval of office conversion projects, ensuring more predictability and fewer barriers to an already difficult building process. It also provides flexibility to ensure that historic buildings, which are often more economically feasible for conversion, are able to be preserved in their historic aspects, but also ensuring that, where possible, we can facilitate a conversion for more active use, including housing.

This Bill has minor and observable costs to the state. And with me, in theory, is Angie Manetti from the California Apartment Association. She is in Rev and Tax, I believe, and testifying there, but sends her strong support.

Great. Any other folks wish to express support in the room? Any primary witnesses in opposition or additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions for our author? Do we have a motion? We have a motion. And a second. And a second. Great. Mr. Haney, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an" Aye" vote. Thank you.

Great. That is out, with Republicans not voting. Ms. Pacheco not voting, as well. Great. Thank you. Okay, now we have Mr. Fong. You're up next.

You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 893 expands the ministerial approval process for residential, mixed-income developments on commercially zoned lots near campus universities, and creates eligibility for affordable units for students, faculty, and staff.

This Bill addresses our state's housing crisis that has disproportionately affected our students, who have been explicitly excluded from certain housing assistance programs due to outdated rules.

Assembly Bill 893 increases the supply of housing on commercial lots, which are already located in dense areas. Because AB 9—893—expands on existing processes implemented by our Chair Wicks' Bill, Assembly Bill 2011, there are negligible state costs. Here to testify in support is Kate Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rogers, Chair of the Student Homes Coalition, here in support of AB 893 as co-sponsors, and respectfully requesting your support today, also politely requesting your support. So, the student housing crisis is undeniable. We have tens of thousands of students that are actively homeless right now.

This makes students one of the most effective groups by student homelessness and quite frankly, existing services and on-campus units just are not enough to address the crisis. And you know, many universities and colleges want to build housing, but as this Committee knows, public projects are extremely expensive and can be very delayed.

So, the good news is we don't need a large state-funded program to start addressing the student homelessness crisis. By allowing developers to build more mixed-income units, AB 893 will start to help address the student housing crisis in a way that, as the author mentioned, very affordably for the state.

So, you know, we also know that building housing at all income levels will help moderate rents for not just students and faculty, but also the community at large. So lastly, want to thank you, Chairwoman, for authoring 2011 and also co-authoring this Bill, and we respectfully request your support today.

Great, thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

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

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions, comments? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully and politely ask for an "Aye" vote.

I love it. Thank you for doing the Bill. Really appreciate it. And thank you for your testimony. I know, even at UC Berkeley, up to 10% of folks who study there, at one of the world's most renowned institutions, have experienced homelessness while being a student at Cal.

So, this is obviously a huge issue and anything we can do to streamline, make it easier to build housing, you know, I am—I will sign up for, which is why I'm a coauthor on this Bill. So, thank you for your leadership on that. And with that, that is out, with Republicans not voting and Mr. Hart not voting as well.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I think I'm next.

Chair Wicks, you're presenting AB 1021. You may proceed.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Thanks for allowing me to present AB 1021. This bill will make it easier for school districts and other local educational agencies to build housing for their employees.

This bill builds off of AB 2295, a bill in 2022 from Assembly Member Richard Bloom addressing the remaining issues that have been identified by school districts to proceed with building housing. I know we have a lot of districts that are facing school closures and other things.

If we could repurpose that land for housing, for workforce housing, for our teachers and our classified employees, we can make lemonade out of lemons. So with that I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Do we have any witnesses in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Reefe on behalf of the California School Boards Association, a proud co sponsor. Also on behalf of our other two co sponsors, UCLA's City Lab, the Oakland Trust for Public Innovation and also in strong support is the Los Angeles Unified School District. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you. Do we have any other metoos? Any witnesses in opposition? Bring it back to the Committee. Any comments? Okay.

Would you like to close respectfully and politely ask for an Aye vote?

This a motion and a second correct. AB 1021 is out with Republicans not voting with Ms. Dixon and Mr. Tangipa voting no.

Thank you. Okay, I think we're done with presentation. I'd like to dispense with the the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

Assembly Bill 672833444851565865677582849395222-224-24625527286314-325-3313-413423-493563573-623663-67371-3723-8438-8395-4054074-2542-7430-4314-3244-3450-4724-4476-4784-95512514524526531532542549550554560563564576577-595-98-602610617619635646666-2676-569369-469967057-067147-167227287307-317347-4274374-5746-677378-37907-9798-8018-0382-38258278-298383-58855-8648-668858-888919029-059089-13915-9329-359419-49954-9589-649699-71973-97-99-896998100310181020102210251027102810311045105110521053105910641084108610951096109811021108111111461151116011631167117311801182118811951196120112041208121712211222122512271229123312351236124212441247125512601264126712711280128812911293129412951312131613191328132913311336133891343134813491357136313651373137513771380138113831386138813911398140014081410141714201423142714291433144114481454145614571487149515011505-1520-1521-1524 ACA 3, ACA 4 and ACA 7 thank you.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. Okay, with that we will go to public testimony. Public comment, sorry. So I want to open up the hearing to comments made by members of the public on any bill not presented to the committee today.

Please be sure to limit your comment to your name, organization if any, and position on the Bill. Step up to the mic.

Madam Chair, first, are we changing the custom and practice of this committee to respectful and?

Always polite and respectful.

Always polite and respectful? Okay, I'll go with the flow then. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in support of Assembly Bill 743 dealing with litigation financing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Mallow with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robeson and Smith on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, their a co-sponsor, an AB5, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning again, Madam Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing offering polite support and requesting respectful consideration of a number of bills. All in support. AB524, which is community alliance with family farmers, number one legislative priority. AB823, support from the Monterey Bay Aquarium. AB902, support from San Diego Humane Society.

AB1319, support from San Diego Humane Society and Monterey Bay Aquarium. AB1417, support from the National Wildlife Federation and Monterey Bay Aquarium and AB1448, support from Oceania, Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Surfrider Foundation. Thank you for all your hard work.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, proud sponsor and strong support of AB1448. Also noting support for AB405 and AB902 and offering polite and respectful opposition to AB706, AB881, AB 1111 and AB839. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Will Abrams on behalf of the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition in strong opposition unless amended AB286 and AB1020. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Durazo Manning on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud co-sponsor of AB407, proud sponsor of AB407 and proud co sponsor of AB65.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Emily Allen. I am the former school board President for Clarksville Charter School, and I am also the hiring manager for Firefly Tutors, which is a service provider for over 50 charter schools in 63 counties throughout the State of California. And I want to state my opposition to AB84.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Joseph Allen. I attend Feather River Charter School and I oppose of AB84. Thank you.

My name is. My name is Levi Allen and I attend the Feather River Charter School and. And I oppose the bill AB84.

Thank you.

Alex Mountford with the California President of the California Respite Association. I respectfully oppose AB617. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Shawna Day and I respectfully oppose AB617 for the California Community Living Network as well as 24 Hour Home Care. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association here as a proud co-sponsor of AB610. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning again, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Respect, respectfully request your support for the following bills. AB51, which we are a co-sponsor of, related to Englewood Unified School District interest waivers.

Also AB598, Gibson, related to school mapping data grant program, AB693, related to broadband state oversight, AB988, related to pupil Instruction Advisory Board for dual enrollment frameworks, and AB 1025, related to standby Caretaker act for individuals impacted by immigration actions. Thank you very much for your support and hard work today.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is River McQueen and I'm from Sacramento and I oppose AB84. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you all for staying and hearing us in this nice line here. My name is Jennifer McQueen. I'm. I also reside in Sacramento. I'm a registered Democrat. I'm a charter school parent of three. I'm a school board member and a non-profit Executive Director, and I am also opposing AB84. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rose McQueen. I am a Sacramento Charter school senior and I also oppose AB84.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Faith McQueen. I'm a former charter school graduate. I just graduated from from Phlebotomy School, and I also oppose AB84.

Good morning. On behalf of Alcohol justice, my name is Roll Verdugo and we oppose AB342. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members Marlon Laura from the California Restaurant Association wanted to record our support and opposition to a few bills. AB342, support, AB828, opposed, AB325, AB1018, AB1221, and AB1331. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members Rand Martin on behalf of Aviana Healthcare in strong opposition to AB617. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jacob Niemann. I am from the Association of Regional Center Agencies and we support the following bills. AB341, AB349, AB563, AB815, and AB1386. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. David Bollog, on behalf of the LA County Chapters of Moms for Liberty. Actually all of California Moms for Liberty, Mom and Dad Army, we oppose AB8. And if I apologize, there was a bill by Rick Zbur, I believe was 1084, if it wasn't heard. Also our duty and California Family Council do oppose that.

That's in regards to name changes and the organizations that I mentioned also. Thank you.

Thank you. Create any additional comments from the public with that we will adjourn.