Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Come to order. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. The Senate welcomes the public in person. We're holding Committee meetings here in the capitol building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 113 so we can establish the quorum. We're not there yet, so we will proceed as a Subcommitee.

We have 19 bills on today's agenda, three of which are on consent. File item number six, AB457, file item number 10, AB532, and file item number 19, AB15 29, file item five, AB356, and file item 17, AB12 94, were pulled from today's hearing at the request of the authors. So we're ready to go.

As I said, we will proceed as a Subcommitee and we'll have our first author, Assembly Member Alvarez, please. Welcome. Good morning. Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 76 before you here today. I want to start by thanking you and your staff: Madam Chair, Jonathan Peterson; really a lot of support. Appreciate collaboration on this issue.

It's really important because this is a matter that we're trying to solve for a problem that unfortunately, the Surplus Lands Act created for what one of my local governments. The largest city that I represent fully, which is the City of Chula Vista, excuse me, has been working on an issue for well over 30 years.

And so, this is really important. So, I appreciate all of the dedication and support. So, as I said, over 30 years ago, the City of Chula Vista began the process of bringing a university to the communities that I represent.

And since then, it has procured 383 acres of land and codified these efforts through its sectional planning area plan. Their document, which outlines the creation of the University Innovation District. Developing a University in Chula Vista will go a long way in addressing some of the lack of access and education in our region.

And it's certainly a topic you will likely hear from me over my tenure here in the legislature, as this is definitely our number one priority.

The university presence in South County would be a key player within the regional economy, producing graduates who occupy regional jobs, employ thousands of workers, and all the other contributions that universities and institutions make to communities. Chula Vista is the largest city in California with over 275,000 residents without a university offering bachelor's degree programs.

South Bay communities of San Diego County are home to over half a million people whose educational attainment is necessary to sustain our regional growth and for our future workforce needs.

So, in 2022, a couple years ago, I came before this committee because I had Assembly Bill 837 which ensured that the City of Chula Vista had an exemption to the Surplus Lands Act so they can proceed with their plans of the University Innovation District.

The bill mandated that the piece of land would only be used for the specific purpose, along with requiring that a significant amount of housing in that development, including affordable housing, were part of the project.

This bill clarifies that the affordable housing requirement does not extend to the units designated specifically for students or for faculty or staff university employees due to the restrictions unfortunately imposed by federal regulations.

More importantly, AB 76 does not reduce the total number of housing expected to be built but enables the city to better align housing development with its university plans. In fact, Chula Vista is very proud, as you'll hear from their city manager in a moment, of actually building a lot, a lot of housing for our region.

This legislative adjustment is essential to support Chula Vista's efforts and our San Diego County community's effort of establishing a four-year University to the South Bay while simultaneously addressing our housing needs of the university community. So, thank you very much for allowing us to present.

I'd like to turn it over to our witnesses from the City of Chula Vista.

Good morning. Good morning. Welcome and you have a two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Durazo and committee members. My name is Maria Kachadoorian, and I am the City Manager for the City of Chula Vista and I'm here today to urge your support for AB 76 which will allow the city to continue implementing its 30-year vision of developing a binational multi-institutional University Innovation District.

Chula Vista is the second largest city in the County of San Diego with a population of 280,000 residents and growing city has many hard-earned accolades among them being a leader in providing diverse quality housing options.

In fact, we have so much housing that has created a job to housing imbalance that leads to over 80% of our population leaving the city every day to commute to job centers in Northern San Diego County. Building economic sustainability is a priority for the city.

For this reason, from 2001 to 2014, the city negotiated with various developers to assemble and acquire 383 acres of land through a combination of land offer agreements, land exchanges, and agreements with developers for the University Innovation District.

In 2018, the University Innovation District Sectional Planning Area Plan and Environmental Impact Report were adopted which completed entitlements for city owned sites. In 2022, we sought to secure a legislative exemption to the Surplus Land Act to protect land the city does not consider surplus and continue working with the development and university partners.

We are here today seeking to clarify the requirements of the exemption after it was determined in language does not reflect the entitlements or agreed upon affordable housing requirements.

The language before you affirms the city's intent to develop the UID in a manner consistent with the existing land use entitlements for the project and ensure production of affordable housing.

AB 76 allows the city to continue its vision and continue with the momentum that we have in order to achieve our 30-year vision to bring this much, much needed resource to Chula Vista and the entire San Diego County region. For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on AB 76. Thank you very much.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to respond to any questions you may have.

Okay. Okay. Do we have anyone else in support of AB 76? No, seein none. Do I have anybody in opposition to AB 76? No, seeing none. Okay, we'll bring it to the dice. Any comments or questions? Senator Seyarto?

I do have some comments.

I'll be supporting your bill today because I am supporting the concept of us kind of looking at some of these obstacles to our communities being able to develop the communities they want, even when they are complying with the, you know, the RHNA numbers and things like that and trying desperately to add the housing that they want.

But there are some areas in communities that need to be just carved out because even when you're not carving, if they're not carved out, what happens is HCD rolls in, and they start making a bunch of requirements. And some of those requirements are not even in law. They're just using the thing for leverage.

This young lady's nodding her head because she knows I'm right. And we're having the same issue up in a couple of my communities. And what's playing out here is playing out in a bunch of different communities.

And so what I would implore you, as I support your efforts to do this, is that we look at this on a bigger scale so that we don't have to do this process every single time a civic center needs to be preserved or an area where a university square needs to be developed.

Some important aspect of a community that's not a house or is not affordable homes can be developed to support those exact things. Does us no good to move people out into affordable homes and not have jobs for them. And you can't have jobs.

If you don't have the buildings or the energy and the synergy with all of these different groups to be able to produce good paying jobs, decent paying jobs.

If they're going to commute, then that's what's going to happen is they're going to stay there forever because they won't ever be able to climb out of what they're doing now.

And so, you know, I'm right there with you on these type of issues and happy to be supporting your bill but also would implore you to work with the rest of your colleagues to try to address this for everyone.

And not just Chula Vista, but all the other communities that are doing exactly the same thing, have to find somebody to carry a bill to exempt their little slice of the pie. Shouldn't be that way.

Okay. I don't know if you needed to.

Thank you, Senator. You're right. It shouldn't take legislation. I think there's some learned lessons. And as far as you know, I have to acknowledge the work done before my time and involvement with this. The leaders of Chula Vista who envisioned this and then the Surplus Land Act came to be after that.

And this is why we're doing that. So certainly, acknowledge that, and I forgot to also acknowledge, Madam Chair, we are accepting the amendments and thank you for the support in figuring out what the right amendment would be again to allow this project to move forward. Thank you.

Perfect. That's what I was going to ask you. Okay. Seeing no more comments or questions, no more members. Then, we'll proceed and, when they put appropriate time, we'll have a motion introduced. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Good luck. All right. Assemblymember Alvarez, AB 610.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you for allowing us to present the bill again, accepting the committee amendments. And thank you, the consultants, for their work on this and helping us get to a place that would make sense for the committee.

Assembly Bill 610 strengthens compliance with housing element laws by mandating that through an analysis of governmental constraints, and requiring transparency in communicating those regulations to the Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD.

The bill is part of the fast-track housing bill package, an initiative to address California's housing crisis that we've heard come before this committee and have voted on some already. California is in the middle of a deep housing crisis. I don't need to get into those specific specifics. You've heard them.

But any given night in 2024, over 85,000 Californians experience homelessness. The root really is the crises within the massive shortage of affordable rental housing, with nearly 2 million extremely and very low-income households competing for only 750,000 units that are available in the entire State of California.

So while the state needs 1.3 million more affordable homes to come close to this gap, current production is not really there. It's too slow, and it's not happening quickly enough. One barrier to housing often becomes the uncertainty that is created by some of the local government decisions on adding new constraints to housing production.

Things like new fees and zoning restrictions, or added procedural burdens that make it harder to build affordable homes. That is where AB610 comes in.

The bill requires our local governments to more transparently disclose any proposed regulations that they anticipate in adopting during the first three years of their planning period, that they submit once and deem in compliance by HCD. By fostering transparency and accountability, AB610 aims to create a more effective framework for meeting the housing needs statewide.

Trying to create again a little bit more acknowledgement of the importance of certainty over the course of time. And that's what this bill is about. To provide testimony, I'd like to turn it over. First to Vanessa Chavez.

Good morning, Chair and members. Vanessa.

Good morning. You have two minutes.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association here as a proud co-sponsor of AB610. First, I want to thank the committee for their hard work on this bill and thoughtful analysis.

Second, just want to highlight that the bill's premise seeks to ensure that there is further transparency in the housing element process. One, a great deal of resources go to cities submitting a compliant housing element. Two, therefore, we believe that an accurate assessment of what constraints will be modified or amended provide greater clarity for housing providers and developers.

And three, we must ensure that if there are measures that are being proposed but have yet to go into effect, those are enumerated, and more specifically,y that they are disclosed in the housing element.

AB610, as proposed to be amended, will ensure that there is more transparency for home builders of all sizes, especially those with limited resources, to understand what costs are associated with their projects. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote and thank. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman, advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition, or HACC for short. HACC is a member-supported statewide organization that advocates for building more infill homes at all levels of affordability.

We are a proud sponsor of AB610, a critical piece of the fast-track housing package that addresses a fundamental issue, the need for transparency and predictability in local housing planning.

Once a jurisdiction's housing element is certified by HCD, it should be focused on one, completing required rezonings within the three-year statutory window, two, implementing housing programs they committed to, and three, removing existing barriers to housing that were identified in their housing element.

AB610 affirms stat principle and clarifies that if a city plans to adopt new or more stringent development constraints like fees or procedural hurdles, they must disclose them up front during the housing element process. As you know, the housing element is only a part of a city's general plan that must be certified by the state.

That's because the state takes housing seriously, and so do we. Public dollars and private stakeholders public and private stakeholders spend years and millions of dollars working through the arena and housing element process to create meaningful housing strategies. But for this process to work, local governments must participate in good faith.

That means disclosing all known potential barriers to housing and not waiting until after a housing element is certified to introduce new constraints. To be clear, this bill does not stop cities from adopting new policies. But when they wait until after housing element certification to do so, it introduces confusion and risk that can stall urgently needed housing.

Here are just a few real examples of what we've seen. In the first example, a city received its housing element certification in December of 2023. Less than a year later, they adopted a new public art fee on housing projects up to one percent of total project value. This exaction was never disclosed to HCD during the housing element review.

A second example of this problem was where a city went through three rounds of review with HCD but failed to mention plans to restrict the state density bonus by limiting the ability of developers to waive underground utility requirements, even though their housing elements said otherwise.

These kinds of post-certification changes violate the spirit and arguably the letter of the housing law. They create uncertainty for housing providers and ultimately delay or deter housing that communities desperately need. This bill is not about penalties. It's about giving builders and local governments clarity and consistency. They need to move forward with housing.

With that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much else here in support of AB610. Please come identify yourselves.

Good morning. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr., an Orange County philanthropist. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB610? No one? Oh, what? Got it. Okay.

It's okay.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia, representing the American Planning Association. We did have an opposing, less amended position, but understand there are forthcoming amendments and would like to really thank the committee and the author's office for those. We're going to take a look at those, and hopefully we'll be able to consider removing opposition once we've had chance to review. Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Tracy Ryan, Rural County Representatives of California also looking forward to reviewing the amendments and hope they get to a place of neutral. Thanks. Thank you.

Good morning. Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in respectful opposition. Looking forward to reviewing the amendments, though. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tracy Rhine, Rural County Representatives of California also looking forward to reviewing the amendments and hope they get to a place of neutral. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Neuburger, California State Association Counties. Also providing comments on behalf of the League of California Cities, I want to thank the author's office and the committee for their work on this bill. We will also be reviewing the amendments to see if we can modify our position.

Thank you.

Chris Lee, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, want to align our comments with the American Planning Association. Thank you.

Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project, really appreciate all the work of the author and the Committee on the bill, and we're pleased to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members. Andrew Antwih, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, we look forward to reviewing the amendments being discussed today. But currently, the City of Beverly Hills has an opposed position.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Questions? Comments? Yes, Senator Arreguin.

I want to thank the author for the continued work on this bill. I did not vote for this bill when it was in the Senate Housing Committee for the concern I had about.

I did express this to the bill sponsors about making it more difficult for governments to adopt fees or other policies that could be perceived as constraints. I'll just point out in my jurisdiction, we adopted a labor standard that I would argue is not a land use policy, but was perceived as a governmental constraint.

And I appreciate you sort of taking out any reference to, you know, prohibiting the local governments from adopting or amending constraints to have this be about sort of reporting about constraints that have been adopted or will be adopted. So with that, I will be supporting your bill today. I'm happy to make the motion.

Okay, thank you. Appropriate time. Senator Seyarto? None. Okay, I think we're good. You accepted the amendments. Okay. Any closing remarks?

Thank you, again. Appreciate the support.

Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. And we'll take up the motion when we have enough people. AB652.

Thank you Madam Chair. I promise you'll see other authors in a second here. Appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 652 which seeks to address operational efficiencies, inefficiencies, I should say, within the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.

The legislative initiative would permit each appointing authority to designate an alternate, which they cannot do today, who can serve, vote and receive compensation in the absence of the or disqualification of the regularly appointed member.

By adopting this measure, it will ensure that the continuity of decision making process maintaining a rigorous qualifications for alternates which are the same as the members themselves. The approach is designed to uphold the necessary expertise and accountability required to tackle the pressing air quality challenges that face our region.

This bill is important because of the inability to appoint alternate members has created significant challenges for the Air Pollution Control District which disrupts its capacity to respond promptly to urgent air quality issues and meet to address these concerns.

One major concern is the inability to meet quorum due to member absences caused by conflicts, illnesses or recusals which can stall the votes on permits, regulations and enforcement actions.

The absence of public members such as specialists and advocates for environmental justice risks underrepresentation which hampers the progress on issues that disproportionately impact communities that are suffering the most from air quality issues. Thus, delays in governance that threaten SDAPCD's ability to fulfill its duty of safeguarding public health and aligning with state climate objectives.

So this is a straightforward and effective solution to these challenges by allowing each appointing authority, such as the City Council or the County Board of Supervisors to designate their equally qualified alternates. This provision ensures that no vacancies disrupt the board proceedings, allowing alternates to step in as needed and up.

In support of this I we've requested permission from my office legislative aide Navrine to read a witness letter on behalf of the Air Pollution Control District. Madam Chair to have permission to read.

Yes.

Seeing no objection.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District would like to express its appreciation to Assemblymember David Alvarez for introducing each Assembly Bill 652 and including provisions to clarify our govern governance structure.

SDPCD supports AB 652 including the committee amendment to randomly select the super visceral and public members that will serve two year terms in the staggered term provision of this bill. This provision, along with others in AB 652 helps address challenges we have encountered and provide solutions to effectively resolve them. We urge you to support AB 652 with the aforementioned amendments today. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, do we have anybody else in support of AB 652? Please come forward.

Thank you. Chair, Members, Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 652? Seeing none. Members, any questions or comments? No. Seeing none. That's it. Thank you very.

Madam Chair.

Oh, you're closing remarks.

Sorry. Yeah, we are accepting amendments again. Thank you for that. And I would just note you probably have all received all of the opposition that we know of has been removed as a result of amendments. So I appreciate an aye vote thank you. At the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you all very much. All right. Ms. Papin? Assemblymember Papin. She's not here. I know there's nobody else is here. Well, Ms. Assemblymember, I think you're very lucky nobody else is here. So sorry. So you can come up lucky. You get to jump all those.

All the others. I was in Senate Judiciary for a very long time yesterday, but. Good morning, Chair Durazo. Senators, thank you for allowing me to present today.

I'm here to present AB 654, which addresses a gap in our homelessness programs in LA County by establishing a dedicated telephone system to provide direct assistance to individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. As many of you know, LA County is the epicenter of our homelessness crisis in California.

And in the most recent homelessness count, we made great progress. Homelessness showed progress of some of those numbers going down. It's as a result of making sure that our unhoused get access to services directly and get access to things like permanent supportive housing.

But still, we're still the epicenter and we still have a lot of work to do. And so there's a desperate need for a centralized system that is solely dedicated to helping our most vulnerable. Existing systems are still valuable resources, but they are looped in with things like tree trimming, trash pickup, sidewalk repairs.

And unfortunately, our current systems aren't working because they are overwhelmed with the number of calls and are handling over 100 different services. But we don't have a single number in LA County that's solely dedicated to homelessness. And that's what we really need. When someone is unhoused and needs help, their call shouldn't compete with non urgent service requests.

They need an immediate response and not to be placed in a general queue or to be on hold for hours. AB 654 authorizes LA County to create a dedicated response line managed by a direct service provider and connect those experiencing homelessness with those essential services.

Supervisor Hilda Solis also supports AB 654 and there's a lot of ongoing work that's happening now in LA County, including the creation of their new Homelessness Department. With me here today to testify is one of my constituents who flew in this morning and somebody who's been a longtime advocate in the homelessness space is Brian Cohan. Thank you.

Good morning. Welcome and you have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you. Chair Durazo and Members of the Committee. As Assemblymember Caloza said, I'm here to speak for AB 654 as a homeless advocate and constituent of Senate District 26. For the past seven years I have been running weekly drop in programs and doing volunteer street outreach with a group of neighbors.

We started a small mutual aid organization and now have three staff supporting over 600 active volunteers. Like me, our volunteers are on the front lines of homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. For example, we've rescued three month old babies in tents, grounded people desperately clinging to reality and been the first to find deceased Angelenos.

We frequently engage 211 in the course of our work. For regular Angelenos, 211 is the way to access shelter resources. It is the most common reason we call. But despite average county wide interim housing vacancy rates around 20% calls rarely result in a bed for a person in crisis hold.

Times that often stress past an hour are too long and when you get through you're usually given stale information or another list of numbers to call. I personally was on hold for 5 hours and 14 minutes during a weather event trying to secure a bed for an elderly couple just out of the hospital.

When we found that three month old baby and her autistic mother, we called 211 which should have been able to provide a motel for the weekend. The call proved too difficult for her to navigate, so we put them up in a motel ourselves and leveraged personal connections with professional service providers to get them help.

The underlying scarcity of housing and shelter is our largest problem. But 211 is overwhelmed and Los Angeles infrequently fails to deliver achieved results. There is no ethical way to deliver a scarce resource, so we have a duty to be as efficient and standardized as possible.

I think augmenting 211 with a dedicated homeless service line is a necessary step in that direction. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else in support of AB 654? Seeing none do we have anyone in opposition to AB 654 seeing none. Members, questions or comments? Senator Seyarto.

Hi, so on this, are you suggesting that we should have a different 11 type of number or a whole full number number? What is it? Because we got 911, 411, 211. What's the goal?

Yeah, I mean the goal right now.

I know what the goal is, but what is, is it going to be delivered by another one of those type of numbers?

So currently the telephone systems that exist in many cities and counties are those three digit numbers that you mentioned, like 911 and 211. But as it stands, we don't have a dedicated number to homelessness. And when you look at the data, that is the majority of the types of crises that we are responding to.

And so this creates a centralized system that's managed directly by a service provider instead of being a referral agency that gives you a number to go to a direct service provider.

Right, I get that because the 211 system, the problem with the 211 system is overwhelmed because it's underfunded and it needs to work better. And this is an example of where it doesn't work and where it fails. And my concern is when we add another line, yet another line, we create confusion.

Nobody knows what to call, so they call everything but and eventually get to where they want. But who's to say the same thing that's making 211 fail now isn't going to fail, then the new system won't fail because of underinvestment.

See, a lot of these issues are we could probably fix them, but we have to, from the legislature down, appropriate the right money to be able to make it work the way it needs to work.

Because the whole idea was a centralized 211 system was if you have any kind of trouble whatsoever, that's not an e1mergency, you dial 211 because it was happening. Everybody for all those things you were talking about was dialing 911. So you know, that's. I kind of struggle with this a little bit, adding another layer.

And when I think we need to fix the system, we have to be able to accommodate this. What you're trying your goal in an appropriate way without just creating another system that needs fixed again. So yeah, we'll consider that when we're voting.

And if I can just respond really quickly.

Can you hold on just one second? Assemblymember, Excuse me. We have sufficient members here to establish quorum. Do you want to

[Roll call]. You have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you.

Thank you Chair. Thank you Senator Seyarto and thanks for your concerns. I think the fundamental difference between, you know, AB 654 and the existing service is that this would be a number that's solely dedicated to homelessness. And 211 is a great service.

Let me be clear, it does need to be funded because they are understaffed and under a lot of stress. But, you know, to have them handle everything from homelessness to tree trimming to trash pickup, in addition to over 100 other services, is a lot for one number to handle.

And so, given the gravity of this crisis in LA County specifically, we do need a dedicated number. And at the same time, there's also a lot of changes and reforms happening in LA County as it relates to homelessness. So the time is now to push something like this forward. And I don't know if you wanted to add anything.

Yeah, I would just add that there's no reason that 211 couldn't route to this new service. Like, I agree that confusion is something we want to avoid so most people are still going to call 211 and hopefully this would just be able to route them to something that doesn't take five hours to answer your call.

Yeah, I just - do you have? No, I'll do it afterwards. Go ahead, Senator Arreguin.

I support this bill when it came to our Senate Human Services Committee. I'm happy to support this bill again and make the motion at the appropriate time. I agree with Senator Seyarto to that 211 is under resourced. That's something that we should address as policymakers.

But given the scale of the homelessness crisis in LA County, I see this not competing with 211 but building off of what 211 does.

And just during the fires, 211 was overburdened and having additional number, additional resource to connect people to services and shelter and permanent housing I think will help the city better improve its response to homelessness. I just want to note, I think it was recently announced that LA is making progress in reducing homelessness.

And I think that this is an additional tool that can help continue that important work. Some cities have homeless response teams. My city created, we created a homeless response team when I was mayor.

I know that San Francisco has specific homeless response teams that have separate numbers for you to call so that those teams can do outreach and provide services. And I see this as another tool that can better help the State of California address the crisis of homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will of course, wholeheartedly support and I want to thank you, Brian. Thank you very much for doing what you do, your volunteerism, getting the community involved to help. Obviously, you now have developed an expertise to be able to support efforts like this, things that make sense, things that will make a difference.

And I agree this is a moment when the focus has to be laser on homelessness. We're making some progress, and we really need to keep that, keep a focus.

To put someone who answers that 211 call, the difference between picking up a mattress that's been abandoned and or responding to someone who's ready, really wants the help and is ready to take that help. That's what we always talk about, right? Are they ready?

Are they in a position to want and ask for the help? When they ask for it, we've got to be immediately response. So, thank you very much for moving this and thank you for your work in my district as well, for all that you do for our community. And with that, we will close, closing remarks.

Thank you so much, Chairwoman, senators, thank you; Chair Arreguin, for your support in your committee. You know, I just respectfully ask for your aye vote and help us make progress in LA County on homelessness and make sure that we help every single person because I know we can, and we will during our lifetime make a dent in making sure we get as many people off the street. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a motion? Senator Arreguin.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Bill is on call. Thank you very much. Okay, so go back to Soria. Okay. What's that? Oh, yeah. Assemblymember, please come forward. Yeah. We'll now hear from Assemblymember Soria, AB 1441.

Welcome.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members. AB 1441 is a district bill that establishes an independent redistricting commission in the County of Merced to improve participation and transparency in their redistricting process.

Since the establishment of California Statewide Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008 by Proposition 11, California has taken numerous steps to put the responsibility for drawing California's electoral districts in the hands of its citizens at every level of government.

What has previously been a closed-door process in many parts of the state has been opened up to interested citizens who want to see the unique composition of their communities reflected in the districts used in their elections.

Over the last two decades, many have followed to follow the lead set by Prop 11 and sought the establishment of Citizens Redistricting Commissions for their cities and counties. Legislation has brought the benefits of Citizens Redistricting Commissions to eight counties in the state.

Urban counties like Los Angeles and San Diego and is bringing those same benefits to rural counties like Fresno and San Luis Obispo. It is time for Merced to join these counties. The people of Merced want an opportunity to participate in a transparent process where they have a seat at the table.

To ensure the engagement of its diverse citizens, AB 1441 would establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Merced in the time for the completion of the next census and redrawing of district lines in 2030. Here with me to testify in support of AB 1441 is Anna Lisa Vargas to speak on behalf of Communities for New California.

Good morning, Chair Durazo, Vice Chair Choi and fellow members. My name is Analisa Vargas, and I live in District 2 of Merced County in the City of Merced with my young daughter. I'm a Community Organizer with Communities for a New California, a local community-based organization.

And CNC Action Fund is a statewide organization that endeavors to achieve public policy that is socially, economically and environmentally just for California families. We engage, listen to, and mobilize voters who have been historically been left out of public policy decisions impacting their families, loved ones, and neighborhoods.

During the 2021 redistricting process in California, CNC Action Fund led various efforts to ensure the redistricting process for municipalities and political subdivisions was fair and inclusive. On behalf of communities for New California Action Fund, we are proud to sponsor Assembly Bill 1441 because it directs the County of Merced to establish an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.

This will ensure that districts are fairly drawn by taking into account demographics and communities of interest. Simply put, we believe voters should choose their elected officials. Elected officials should not choose their voters.

Over the last several decades, Californians have been shifting redistricting responsibility away from elected officials and into the hands of independent citizens to ensure a fair process. AB 1441 essentially will continue past efforts to improve representation and engagement in local elections.

This is a major step in ensuring that the county's residents live in districts created in a fair and impartial process that promotes transparency, accountability, and public trust and county government. For these reasons, CNC Action Fund is pleased to sponsor 1441. We hope we can count on your vote to send this bill to the Governor. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone want to in support of AB 1441, please come forward.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Sam Hood on behalf of California Common Cause, in support today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, in strong support.

Cedalia King with UDW Local 3930, in strong support.

Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power CA Action, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 1441? Good morning.

Good morning. I had a bunch of notes, but I'm not going to speak from them. I'm just going to speak because I'm really tired and frustrated about this. You know, for far too long -

Sorry. Could you identify.

I'm sorry. Josh Pedrozo, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Merced County.

For far too long we've been forced with, been forced unfunded mandates from the State of California. And this is just another one. During our last redistricting process, we had six public hearings. Six of them; two virtual, four in public. We went through and we did everything by the law, the letter of the law.

So much so that it wasn't challenged. We were not challenged, whereas counties north of us were challenged. This is something that, you know, really makes me question the priorities of the State of California. 59% of the population of Merced County is under some sort of public assistance, and yet we're not focused on affordable housing.

We're not focused on cuts and to the SNAP program, cuts to Medicaid. I think this is misguided and there's no funds for it. Merced County is not a wealthy county. We cannot afford to do this. And if there's no funds in there right now, it's same as normal.

I've proposed having an independent advisory commission chosen by the board: each Member of the Board of Supervisors has a member of along with four at large members, two chosen by the assemblymember, two chosen by the Senate, as an advisory commission to provide us with input to no avail.

I just think this is misguided, unfunded, and it's not the right time for Merced County.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition?

Madam Chair and members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Counties of Fresno, Tulare, we represent Merced, Kings and Fresno, also in opposition to this bill.

And if I may, I don't know what counties are supposed to do when they follow state and federal laws to the T. And they are not only, they're not successfully challenged, they're not even challenged unsuccessfully because they have so complied with state and federal laws. We've got a little bit of perspective.

Our firm also represents a county that was successfully challenged, right, in the last 15 years. When counties don't comply with the letter of state and federal law, they can be challenged, and they can be forced to revisit their redistricting. That's under all current laws. The one-off bills, I just respectfully, they need to stop.

When counties are complying with every single other law that is on the books. Respectfully request you hold this bill.

Especially when you think of this bill, assuming it gets out today, if it's on the floor and it doesn't have million dollars in it, which is what was provided to Fresno County and what was provided to Riverside County.

When the bill gets to the floor, it should not be allowed to advance to the governor's desk unless money is in the bill from Merced County to redistrict. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? No. Seeing none. We'll come to the dais. Questions or comments, anybody? Senator Seyarto.

Hi. The independent - this all sounds great. Independent Redistricting Commissions made up of citizens who get together and look at a map and decide what makes sense. You know what communities have things in common.

I don't know if you've ever seen my district, but the only reason I'm in the Senate is because when they independently redistricted my assembly seat, I had three cities in one county, three cities over the mountains into another.

I had to drive through other cities that I used to represent to get to cities that would be over there. So, I decided I would run for the Senate because it was right plug, my city was right - the one I live in is right in the middle of the district.

Now, the middle of the district is two and a half hours to go from one end to the other. I love my district. It's awesome. The cities that I have are awesome cities, but I know why they're there. They're there so they don't dilute the votes in other communities, like in Orange County or in San Bernardino County.

And it's all about how many seats wind up here. So, if they think gerrymandering is going away with independent redistricting committees, that's not happening. If they think we're grouping cities that have common interests and common issues, that's not happening either. And so, you know, this is going to go to the governor's desk. It'll pass.

It'll go to the government. He'll sign it. He signed a bunch of other ones. But it's not - it's not doing what it's being portrayed to be; this equal and just way of putting together a district.

I have to drive an hour to an hour and a half to get to some parts of my district, while cities that are not in my district are 15 minutes away. That doesn't make sense. And neither does this. If they want to do it the right way, I'm all for it. But this is not, that's not the goal of this. And I'm a little bit tired of it. And so, I will not be supporting. I don't support any of these anymore. I used to think, "Yeah, that's great. A citizen - " No, it doesn't work out that way.

Thank you. Well, having written the legislation in my community to create an Independent Redistricting Commission. Having said this issue pretty extensively, there are constitutional standards that have to be met. You have to ensure equal proportion. There are certain standards with regard to making sure that certain populations are not diluted. You have to consider communities of interest.

So those are things that anybody, whether it's the board of supervisors, the legislature or commission, has to implement. And so, I personally think that allowing for Independent Redistricting Commissions taken out of the hands of an elected body, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Merced County Board of Supervisors - good to see you, we were on CALCOG together - not necessarily saying that you're not doing a good job of doing redistricting, but I think empowering actual residents to be involved in helping draw lines, I think is not only makes it more impartial.

But and I'll just say the reason we create our redistricting commission is because there was, you know, explicit political decisions that were involved in drawing boundaries.

And so we elected officials inherently have, whether we are, whether we are doing explicitly or not, we inherently have an interest in wanting to draw boundaries, you know, to effectuate our interests as elected officials by giving that to citizens, residents of our community who are not elected, who have expertise to reflect the diversity of our communities.

I think that's a good thing. It will ensure more impartial maps and maps that better reflect the geography and the diversity of the communities that we represent. So, with that, I understand the concern about resources. That's a legitimate issue. If this bill moves to the Senate, happy to, you know, to talk about that, but I think this is an idea that's worthy of consideration. With that, I'll move the bill.

Well, I want to thank the author. Having an independent commission is really important. We've been through a number of problems in LA, in the city, and there was a commission, but it wasn't an independent commission. And so, the kinds of decisions that were being made were essentially being made by those in office.

I'm just going by what I experienced was those in office were making decisions for themselves. It was not independent, and it needed to be independent. And some of us have fought for it to be independent.

And I, you know, I know we're going to get there, but that's really important for the trust that the community wants to have in government: to know that decisions aren't going to be based on other things other than independent considerations. So, I agree with my colleague here.

This is not an accusation to anybody other than everyone should go through this. Everyone should have the independent process, and that's the fairest way, and that's the way to put prove to our communities that there aren't other issues that will drive them to come up with those decisions.

So, I agree with an independent commission, and I support your bill. So, if you want to make any final remarks.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I do want to also thank the other Senators for your comments. I, too, actually sat previously on a city council where people, where we have the opportunity to redraw our districts. It was the elected officials that were in charge of drawing the lines.

And I will tell you what was happening behind closed doors; people were carving in neighborhoods because that's where they wanted to buy homes, and that's exactly what ended up happening in that process. And so, my goal is very simple.

It is to ensure that we bring more transparency to the process, more accountability and fairness, in turn building the community trust and public trust that is desperately needed, not just in Merced County, but I think in communities across the State of California. And so, I respectfully ask for an aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a motion. Motion by Senator Arreguin.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay. Take over, please. The bill will be on call. Thank you very much. Okay. Oh, he just. Senator, can we have a motion for the consent calendar?

The consent calendar consists of file item 6 AB 457, file item 10 AB 532, file item 19 AB 1529. [Roll Call].

The bill is on call. We'll move on to item 4 AB 93, Assembly Member Papan, Good morning. Welcome.

Madam Chair and member.

Welcome.

Delighted to be with you this morning to present AB 493. And I'd like to begin by saying we will accept the committee amendments. You know, as we all know, water is California's most precious resource and data centers are very thirsty.

AB 93 is a commonsense measure that's all about ensuring data centers operate responsibly, balancing innovation and sustainability all at once. The demand for data centers has skyrocketed with the rise of artificial intelligence and cloud computing. While data centers can bring economic benefits, they also consume immense amounts of water, up to 5 million gallons daily.

In some cases, that is comparable to a town of 50,000 people. This strain is felt most acutely in water stressed areas where tech companies are drawn by affordable power while often ignoring the water impacts. In a state where water is finite and droughts are becoming more frequent; we must make every drop count.

So, AB 93 addresses these water concerns by requiring data centers to self-certify their expected and actual water usage when applying for or renewing their business license. This reporting empowers local governments with the information they need to make informed decisions about development and sustainability.

In recent amendments, I have removed the cost-of-service analysis as well as clarified the definition of data centers for the purposes of the bill. Recognizing our challenging fiscal climate, I've also removed the requirement that the DWR develop best management practices for efficiency in data centers.

Instead, the amended bill states that if DWR does come along and develop best practices, data centers must self-certify compliance one year after the standards are published.

These self-certifications of water use in compliance with any future efficiency guidelines are pragmatic, low burden data points that will help California better understand and manage the water impact of this rapidly growing industry. With me to testify today in support is Shaolei Ren. He is a Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at UC Riverside.

Thank you. Good morning. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Shaolei Ren. I'm an Associate Professor at UC Riverside. I'm here in a personal capacity to testify on my research and the technical aspects of data center water consumption. I'm not representing the university or weighing in on the policy itself. Data centers are energy consuming and produce a lot of heat.

Water evaporation is efficient and commonly used to keep data centers cool. In 2024, the data centers owned by OneTech companies withdrew more than 37 billion liters of water, mostly drinking water, and consumed nearly 30 billion liters through water evaporation. This was equivalent to the water consumption by approximately 4 million people in office buildings per year.

According to the New York Times, in Newton County, Georgia, water requested by some of the new data centers even exceeds the counting its entire water usage. The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab projects that in 2028 the US data center water consumption will double or even quadruple the 2023 level.

In light of the urgency of water conservation, there have been several calls for data center water efficiency and transparency, including the US Government Accountability Office's recent congressional report that recommends the collection and reporting of data center water usage information. Several technology companies have begun to report location specific data center water usage information in their sustainability reports.

Nonetheless, public information about data center water usage in California is extremely limited. As shown by technology companies practices, making the data center water usage information public does not compromise confidentiality or hurt their business competitiveness.

Instead, this will only increase transparency, help address community concerns, promote water conservation practices, and importantly, help local government and water utilities make informed decisions such as better infrastructure planning and water resource allocation to support technological advancement. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 93, please come forward. Good morning.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, we are a tweener. I'm Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies Just really wanted to thank the author for working with us so closely on this to address our concerns about the structure of the bill. Really appreciate the forthcoming amendments and just wanted to thank everybody for that. We're officially neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 93?

Good morning, Madam Chair. I believe I'm the only one up for three organizations. Timothy Burr, on behalf of the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and TechNet. We really appreciate the Committee's work on this and the analysis, and we'll continue on behalf of those organizations to work with the author and her staff. Appreciate that. So opposed for those three organizations. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments. Senator Arreguin? No. Seeing none. Okay. Well, you did say that you were accepting the amendments. Okay, thank you very much. Seeing none. I will be supporting your bill. Thank you for all this work. I was feeling guilty about using water in a few plants.

Look at this. So, any final remarks?

Well, just Monday, there was an article in the New York Times, and it was really very interesting, and the professor mentioned it in Newton County, and they were really caught off guard. A big metadata center went in, and they're expecting to be out of water by 2030.

And most of the time, as this committee probably well knows, the increase in water rates are like, you know, 2%, 3%. They're looking at 33% water increases to be able to keep up with just one data center. So, I'm, you know, I come out of local government.

I'm delighted to be before this committee because I want local governments to be very aware of, you know, seeing what's coming down the tracks. I think we owe it to our residents, and it's a perfect place to do it. So, I respectfully request an aye vote. And I thank the committee for its assistance as well.

Thank you very much. Do I have a motion? Okay.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

The bill's on call. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Assemblymember Hart, good morning. We will now be hearing from Assemblymember Hart on AB 471.

Good morning, Chair and senators. I want to thank your team for their analysis of the bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. Last year, the legislature passed, and the governor signed AB 2522, which allowed certain large and medium air districts to increase compensation limits.

State law, however, is unclear on the authority of other air districts to provide per diem compensation to their board members. As a result, these members aren't receiving compensation for their service. AB 471 addresses this inequity by providing explicit authority to provide per diem compensation for service specified small and medium sized air districts.

This bill includes transparency provisions, a prohibition on automatic increases and a strict annual cap. Board members across the state work diligently to improve air quality and safeguard public health in our communities. Low compensation levels creates challenges, making it harder for these public servants to balance personal and professional obligations.

AB 471 aims to reasonably compensate these board members and attract a wider range of elected officials from varied backgrounds. This bill has had bipartisan support and enjoys no opposition.

Speaking in support of the bill is Aeron Arlin Genet, Director and Air Pollution Control Officer for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and Brendan Tuig from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

Thank you. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aeron Arlin Genet. I am the Executive Director of Santa Claus Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. I'm also a Board Member of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association that represents the 35 air districts in the state and the sponsor of the bill today.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you regarding the need for AB 471. We are asking that you extend the authority of last year's bill, AB 2522, to air district boards that are captured under different state statute and are comprised of county supervisors and city council representatives, either council members or the mayors.

It would give these boards the ability to consider per diem compensation for the work they do to improve air quality and safeguard public health in their communities. In addition to their elected jobs as county supervisors or city council representatives, when serving on air district boards, they serve a broader, highly technical role that must consider air quality issues for the entire county, not for just the jurisdictions that they serve or they were elected to represent. Air district responsibilities are different from those that elected officials may experience in their other roles in Santa Barbara County.

As an example, to effectively serve on my district board, directors must be familiar with federal, state and local rules and regulations, substantial number of complex industrial facilities that we permit air quality attainment strategies, revenue limitations, negotiation aspects with employee unions, and long-range fiscal strategies to ensure the agency operates in a fiscally sound way going forward.

AB 471 addresses the compensation and equity income existing law by providing explicit statutory authority for additional air districts to consider providing limited per diem compensation with no cost to the state. With the per diem compensation in AB 471 being nominal, we believe though, it could help facilitate broader participation and attract a wider range of elected officials who must be - who may be discouraged from serving on air district boards due to fiscal burden.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Madam Chair and senators, Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, that's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. And as Ms. Arlin Genet mentioned, we are the sponsors of the measure. I think it's been covered as to what the bill does thoroughly.

So I'm just here to answer questions and lend our support.

Okay. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in support of AB 471? Please come forward. No. Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 471? No. Seeing none. Senator Arreguin, any questions or comments? Okay. Did you have any? Thank you. And thank you for working with the consultants to make sure we get through some of these issues.

Appreciate your work and you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you and thank you for being here as well. Consultant.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call].

The bill is on call. Thank you. Okay. Assemblymember Hart, you have bill AB 1108.

I want to thank your staff again for your analysis and I'll be accepting the committee amendments. I'm pleased to present AB 1108 a bill to ensure independent medical doctors determine the circumstances, cause and manner of death for individuals who die in custody, in counties with combined sheriff coroner offices.

California is one of only three states in the country to allow sheriffs to simultaneously serve as coroners. In 48 counties across the state, elected sheriffs are tasked with investigating all suspicious and unattended deaths, including deaths that occur in custody while someone is being arrested.

A 2024 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report identified both the real and perceived conflicts of interest that arise from this arrangement. In 2023, two independent physicians consulted by the civil grand jury gave opinions that a specific in custody death should have been classified as a homicide by the sheriff coroner rather than an accident.

These determinations must be made by independent physicians, not sheriff coroners. This bill will make the board of supervisors responsible for determining which outside medical examiners and pathologists to contract with for this service. Only physicians who do not currently contract with the sheriff will be contracted to prevent a provider client conflict of interest.

The ongoing assault on California's immigrant community has led me to amend the bill to make it clear that when a death occurs in the course of immigration enforcement or detention, independent medical doctors must conduct the medical investigations, not sheriff coroners. Immigration raids have become increasingly aggressive and violent.

In the midst of a chaotic mass arrest operation on the Central Coast last week, a farm worker fell to his death from a building. When these medical investigations take place in other border states, like Arizona and Texas, they are completed by independent medical examiners, not sheriffs.

With this bill in place, independent medical doctors will be responsible for determining the scope of the medical investigation and ultimately providing the report on the circumstances, manner and cause of death, regardless of which county the in-custody death occurs in. Speaking in support today is Angela Hill representing the California Medical Association.

And I also have with you if it's okay, Madam Chair, Ethan Bertrand, my district director, who will be reading testimony from the Immigrant Legal Defense Center in Santa Barbara who were unable to attend today's hearing. The center advocates for immigrants on the Central Coast.

Okay, thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you.

And you have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator Arreguin. I'm here on behalf of the California Medical Association in strong support of AB 1108, which will ensure the Independence of professionals and making clinical and forensic determinations. In counties where sheriffs also serve as corners, medical determinations are structurally tied to the office responsible for custodial supervision. And this can create or a conflict or the appearance of one, particularly when there are questions that arise around the conditions of the confinement or the adequacy of care.

AB 1108 is a measured approach that will make sure that cases that involve an in-custody death are investigated by independent examiners and pathologists. This bill does not impose a one size fits all approach. It allows for the intercounty referrals or contracting with independent forensic pathologists; a practical and cost-effective solution, especially for smaller counties.

AB 1108 does not question the professionalism of local officials. Rather, it just recognizes that medical independence enhances credibility. CMA supports AB 1108 because it safeguards the integrity of forensic medical work performed by physicians that benefit all Californians. We thank Assemblymember Hart for his leadership on this important issue and we respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator Arreguin; reading a statement from Julissa Pena, Executive Director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Center on the Senate Central Coast.

And could you give us your name as well.

Yes, Thank you. Ethan Bertrand with Assemblymember Hart's Office. "Our organization stands with nearly a dozen other immigrant serving groups on the Central Coast in support of AB 1108. As a service provider that is working around the clock to support immigrants who are targeted by ICE for arrest and detention, we are very concerned for the safety of our immigrant community.

From the raids in Los Angeles to the operations in Camarillo and Carpinteria last week, people are being put in harm's way. Sadly, we are concerned about the potential for people to lose their lives while being detained or arrested.

Last week, there was an immigrant farm worker who died during the chaotic raid of a work site as over 200 farm workers were arrested. The LA Times recently released an article about a woman suffering a serious heart attack after being arrested by ICE while selling tamales. This isn't just an issue out in the community.

For years, privately-run, for-profit immigrant detention centers have failed to provide for the health and welfare of immigrant detainees. If someone dies while being arrested or transported in the community, the local coroner or medical examiner is called. The same would happen if someone in immigration custody was to die after being taken to a hospital.

People who die in immigration custody deserve to have a medical investigation that is conducted by a physician who does not answer to the sheriff. The Immigrant Legal Defense center respectfully asks for your support."

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1108, please come forward.

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in support for restoring confidence in law enforcement and as a statewide concern.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1108? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 1108?

Good morning, Chair and members. Cameron Sasai, on behalf of LEAD Filipino and on behalf of the families of Angelo Quinto, Miles Hall, and Oscar Grant, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Shouldn't have been last time.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members.

Morning, welcome.

Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association here in opposition to the bill. First, just foundationally, we disagree with the notion that a sheriff coroner office conducting a death investigation of an in-custody death creates a conflict of interest or even the appearance thereof.

Many counties already have policies and practices in place where there is - when there is an in custody death, or for example, an officer involved shooting, where there's an agreement in place that another county sheriff coroner office undertakes the investigation and maybe with a medical examiner's office or an independent coroner's office that they say, "You know, you do our investigations and we'll do yours," because of just, again, out of the practice of good government, have somebody else take a look at it.

But this is a voluntary process and the recent amendments to the bill prohibit this type of arrangement. It is also unclear that how this is going to work because the bill effectively mandates counties to contract with other parties. I don't know how we require a local government to enter into a contract.

The parties have to agree to the terms of a contract. If no entity will accept the contract for death investigation, what happens next is unclear. I'm not entirely clear what the recent assertions about immigration raids have to do with this, but let's be clear.

In every single case in which there is an autopsy, every single case, without exception, irrespective of whether it's one of the 48 counties who have a sheriff coroner or the 10 counties who have a medical examiner or a coroner, a forensic pathologist does the autopsy. That's just a fact. There's no question.

Or maybe they do, maybe they don't. In every single case in which there is an autopsy, a doctor, a surgeon does that autopsy. And in every single case in which there's a death investigation, a medical doctor determines the cause of death, the why the person is no longer with us. That's just a fact.

Those two things are required by statute already. We've heard this complaint that sheriffs are not trained or educated to make medical decisions. The good news is nobody's asking them to. The sheriffs - there's this notion that, you know, there's an expectation that a sheriff is cutting open a body. That doesn't happen. That's done by a doctor always.

So, for all of those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1108? Okay, seeing none. Senator Arreguin, any questions or comments?

Thank you. Well, I support this bill in the Senate Public Safety Committee, but I do have a question for the author, and I will be supporting the bill today. I want to just call attention to the letter.

And we had a representative here today from my district actually of an organization, LEAD Filipino, and I think he spoke on behalf of a number of families of victims, including Oscar Grant. And we all remember the trust tragic murder of Oscar Grant by BART police in the City of Oakland in my district.

And I understand the concern that they've expressed about this bill is that in those specific, very tragic cases, that there was not impartiality between who the county had selected to conduct the autopsy investigation. And so, wonder if you could speak to that particular issue.

And you know, I would argue that having another county conduct the investigation or a third party conduct the investigation creates even more distance and ensures more impartiality in terms of how it's going to be. The death and custody investigation would occur. I think that's best practice, frankly, because it removes the potential for conflict of interest or bias.

But I'm wondering if you can speak to that particular issue, given the concerns that have expressed by these families about what's happened, how this bill could address that, and if there are situations where the third party investigator that's hired by the county does have some sort of conflict of interest, what would be the process of addressing that?

Well, thank you for that question. And I deeply respect and agree with the family members who are concerned about the potential conflict of interest in the current situation.

And looking at the legislative history of bills that have been proposed in the past that were not successful. I've tried to have a more targeted approach that I hope can be successful and incrementally improve the situation by providing some more Independence to the system. And we've narrowed the bill in a targeted way.

And I think that it does not address all of the issues that the family members would like to see, which is a fully separated sheriff and coroner's office. I think that this is going to improve the situation by providing a degree of independence and confidence in the process. It's really important for everybody involved.

Okay, thank you. Happy to move the bill.

I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. I know you're from the Sheriff's State - Sheriff's -

Cory Salzillo.

Cory, could you tell me what you think is the downside to this? Because I think generally speaking, it seems to - it makes a lot of sense that you would have people who might be involved in the investigation not be involved around the death, whatever process takes place, you pick up the body or be at the crime scene. So, what's the downside to having an independent, another person, another entity take charge of the as a coroner.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In a vacuum, I'm not sure that there is. The reality, though, is that 48 of our 58 counties have chosen this model under our statutes. And that means 10 counties have what would qualify as an entity with which the county with a sheriff coroner could contract. There's this notion of independent medical examiners; I'm not sure who they are or if it's a different agency within a different county.

But so, the downside in the context of the reality we find ourselves in is that 10 counties, and whoever else this third-party pool is, will be required effectively by this bill to take on the death investigations that fall under this notion of a conflict of the 48 counties. So that's a downside, number one, for those 10 counties.

Most of the counties that have independent medical examiners are larger counties. But again, they have their own death investigation. So, putting the deficit bar here on those counties creates challenges for them. There's also issues

You mean like financial or whatever?

Financial, workload; I mean, there we hear complaints routinely about how long it takes for a death investigation to be concluded, how long it takes for a death certificate to come to fruition, and moving these cases onto another county's workload could exacerbate those issues. I think that's just one downside to doing something like this, because again, we don't know.

We're telling. I mean, we're effectively telling you, Senator Durazo, if your county has a sheriff coroner's office, you have to contract with Mr. Iceberg or you have to contract with somebody else to do this work. Well, if Mr.

Mr. Iceberg is not able to undertake those, you know, tasks, or is unwilling to say, I'm not going to do that work for what you're willing to pay Senator or county supervisor or, you know, it creates this square peg into a round hole that.

Okay, well, if that doesn't happen, and if all the other Mr. Icebergs are not able to facilitate or accommodate or are willing to sign a contract, what do we do?

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember. Do you want to respond to any of those issues?

Yeah, I just do need to correct the record. There are 48 counties in the state that this would apply to. 10 counties have separated sheriff and coroner operations currently. They are the largest counties in the state. They have the vast majority of the population of the state.

So, the point that this is going to place an additional burden on those 48 counties to have a system that provides that Independence is legitimate. But the number of deaths that we're talking about are relatively modest in the context of the State of California. There were only 781 in custody deaths.

Each person in each situation is important and deserves careful examination: 225 of those were ensured sheriff's custody, 93 in police custody, 2 in probation, and the majority, 461 were in state custody. So, the number of instances where this would be employed is relatively modest in the context of county operations.

And I think it's in looking at the equities and the transparency for the public interest, I think it's an investment that's worth making.

Okay. Okay. Is that your closing remark? Remarks?

Yes. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, we will proceed. We have a motion.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Thank you. The bill is on call. Thank you. We're going to take up. If Senator Arreguin will be helpful. Here is take up two bills that were presented by Assembly Member Alvarez. Go back to them. Do you need a motion? Yes, I need to. So go ahead.

Yes.

Okay. Motion by Senator Arreguin on AB 76.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. Senators Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Choi. Arreguin. Arreguin. Aye. Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener, 20 on call. We can do the vote for this one. That has a motion. So. Already gave me the motion. But we didn't take the roll. We didn't. No, because it wasn't.

But which one is that? Oh, 610.

Okay, so we have a motion on 610. AB 610. But we didn't vote. Okay. So now we're going to vote. We don't need the motion, but we are going to vote on AB 610.

We did have a- but we didn't have a quorum. We didn't vote because we didn't have a. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations, Senators Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi, Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Weiner. 20 on call.

And that Bill is on call.

We need a motion for this one.

AB 652. Okay. We need a motion on AB 652.

Okay, the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Senator Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Choi, Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener. 20

Okay. Okay. Move on to item 11, AB 648, by Assembly Members of Zbur. Welcome. Good morning.

And I will be stepping in a chair and so I'll turn over to you, Assembly Member, to present on your bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. I am proud today to present AB 648, which will combat housing insecurity and homelessness among community college students, staff and faculty while also addressing California's broader housing crisis. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the Committee staff for their work on this bill. So thank you very much.

California community colleges are an integral part of our higher education system system. With over 2 million students attending one of California's 116 community colleges, the community college system has become a critical pathway allowing Californians from all backgrounds to access higher education and economic mobility.

Unfortunately, community college students often face uncertainty about whether they'll be able to provide for their basic needs. Last year, the Legislative Analyst Office found that roughly 660% of community college students face housing security and almost 25% have experienced homelessness. I want to repeat that almost 25% of our community college students have experienced homelessness.

The state has taken multiple actions in recent years to increase student housing at community colleges and allow students to focus on their work instead of worrying about where they're going to sleep at night. AB 648 will address the housing crisis and and recognize the integral role of the California community colleges in our higher education system.

Specifically, the bill will allow student and staff housing to be built on property that's owned or leased by a community college district and located within a half mile of a main campus or an existing satellite campus.

Regardless of how the lot is zoned, community colleges will still be required to comply with CEQA to consult with their local planning Department and follow other relevant regulations.

Not only will this provide housing security for countless community college students, staff and faculty, but it will also make available housing units around community colleges, which will increase housing supply for community Members who aren't students or affiliated with the community college. I'll ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today in support of the bill are Donald Girard, Senior Director of Government Relations and Institutional Communications at Santa Monica College, Ken, key contributor and entity in my district, and Dr. Lay, SATA, vice chancellor of Facilities at Los Angeles Community College District.

Thank you very much. You each have two minutes to address the Committee on the bill. Whoever would like to begin.

Good morning, Chair Members of the Committee, My name is Don Gerard and I'm here on behalf of Santa Monica College, often referred to as smc. Our community extends far beyond Santa Monica. We have around 25,000 students and offer more than 100 fields of study.

Housing insecurity is a crisis for California's community college students and we've seen this firsthand at SMC. We are proud to have led the state for 34 consecutive years in the number of community college students who transfers to the ucs.

However, this academic success comes in in spite of the large number of our students who face either homelessness or housing insecurity. AB 648 is a necessary and urgent solution to this problem.

By allowing community colleges to build student and staff housing on property they own or lease without facing lengthy and expensive delays due to local zoning, this bill removes a major hurdle standing in the way of desperately needed housing. Schools like SMC are ready to Fund and build housing to support our students. This is more than just words.

In 2022 Santa Monica residents voted to allocate $375 million to SMC for a bond measure that explicitly included Provide affordable housing in the ballot title. Our residents stand with us and we're ready to begin addressing the community college student housing crisis by building housing.

We we, along with our co sponsors, including the Los Angeles Community College District and many colleges and supporter parties, see this bill as a necessary step to help ensure that community colleges are able to fully support our students. Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote as amended and thank you for your engagement and involvement.

Thank you very much.

Good morning Chair Aguain My name is Lee Sada and I'm here to represent the Los Angeles Community College District as a co sponsor of AB 648. I serve as the Vice Chancellor and Chief facilities Executive with LACCD, a district that serves over 200,000 students at nine campuses across over 850 miles of service area.

I'd like to thank Assembly Members Burr for authoring AB648, a landmark Bill that will greatly benefit thousands of California community college students struggling with housing insecurity. The housing crisis in Los Angeles has reached a critical point, becoming one of the most urgent barriers to our students ability to complete their higher educational goals.

AB648 will provide avenues for community college districts to more expeditiously break ground on the construction for much needed housing projects for students and employees, making a significant impact on the housing shortage In Los Angeles today at LACCD we provide temporary housing and wraparound services to over 100 housing insecure students through partnerships with nonprofit organizations.

We recently initiated a call for properties procurement process and are actively conducting due diligence on a housing development on LACCD owned property.

LACCD is implementing a three pronged housing strategy including purchasing or leasing buildings near our campuses, forming dorm housing partnerships with local colleges and universities such as in the CSU system, and constructing dorm style housing on one of our or more of our campuses.

This strategy enables us to address the diverse and urgent housing needs of our student population on various timelines and through different approaches. AB648 will remove local zoning barriers and will significantly enhance LA CCD's ability to expedite the construction of student and employee housing facilities on district owned or leased properties.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote and we thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll now take MeToo testimony in support of AB648. Please approach the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Morning Mr. Chair and May Members Raymond Contradas, White House Public affairs on behalf of Abundant. Housing Los Angeles as a co sponsor and spur and strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Members Andrew Antwee with C.H. Yoder, Antwee Schmelzer and Lang here today. On behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support. We thank the author.

Good morning. Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power CA Action in support.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Good morning. Kate Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition. In support as a co sponsor. Thank you. Theresa Brown on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office and support. Good morning. Karen Stout here on behalf of the. Student Senate for California Community Colleges. Well at California be in support.

Thank you. Mark Mcdonald on behalf of the Los Rios San Diego and Fujille De Anza. Community College districts and support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Orchidia De Bruy Reyes on behalf of. Long Beach City College in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB648? Sign? No one. Is anyone in opposition AB648? If so, please come forward. Seeing no one wishing to testify in opposition, I'll bring it back to the dais. And thank you so very much Assembly Reservoir for bringing this Bill forward.

I think it's absolutely critical and I just want to highlight a few things that were cited in the Committee analysis 1.

According to a May 2024 update on student housing assistance by the LAO's office, the rates of students experiencing homelessness at some point in the past 12 months was 24% of respondents in our community college system in California. And we know that our community college students are either working simultaneously while they're attending college supporting their families.

I want to lift up the important work that's done to provide basic needs services to many of our community college students. And the lack of affordable and available housing near where students study is a significant barrier to their academic success and to their personal success. And you know, I'm a proud graduate of the University of California, Berkeley.

I really, I'm grateful for all the investment the state's done to help the UC system build student housing. There's not been the same focus on supporting our community college districts.

And specifically as cited on page three of the analysis, it talks about UC and CSU being state entities and being exempt from local land use regulations which give them more and as a former mayor of a UC town, it's frustrating but that flexibility is important to allow them to be able to build student housing and to build it more quickly.

CCDs don't have the same exemption from local land use regulations. So I think this provides good flexibility to make sure housing projects get built. I appreciate you accepting the Committee amendments include some requirements around affordability. With that I'll turn it back over to you close.

I think you've pretty much given my close at the right time. I respectfully asked for your aye voted.

Okay, thank you. We don't have a quorum of membership here, so I want to get a motion when we get another Member. But thank you very much, Assemblymer. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it.

Okay, we'll now move to our next bill and file order which IS file item 13, AB 752 by Assemblymer Avila Ferias. Good to see you. And so whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, we will go to you and whenever you're ready, some of you may present on your thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB752. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments and thank the chair and the staff for their work on the important measure. AB752 updates state law to support support the development of child care centers across California.

This bill reduces regulatory barriers by allowing child care centers by right in residential zones when they're co located with multifamily housing and established institutional uses Accessible, affordable childcare is essential for family stability and community opportunity. Providers consistently identify zoning restrictions as a costly, burdensome barrier in meeting their needs.

Neighborhood child care centers support childhood development, workforce participation and community well being. AB752 treats it as an essential infrastructure. It is streamlining access where families live and work.

Joining me in support today is Shelly Mazur, representing the Vail sponsor, and Elmer Martinez, Mayor of Redwood City and Director of Community Communications at the Child Care Center Council of San Mateo County.

Good morning. You each have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you Assemblymember thank you Senator. As the Assembly Member said, I'm Dr. Shelley Mazur. I'm the Vice President of Advisory and Policy at the Low Income Investment Fund and we are a national community development financial institution that everyone live in a community community of equity opportunity and well being.

And as a sponsor of the bill, we're pleased to work to increase both affordable housing and childcare facilities and grateful to Assemblymember Fadias for authoring the bill.

Also, as a former City Council Member and an advocate for building supply of child care, I'm committed to building communities by building housing and child care together or co location through streamlining processes for both.

Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis that is exacerbated by lack of facilities, workforce shortages and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions and AB752 offers one the master plan for Early Learning and Care.

The California for All Kids states that more than 70% of centers reported facilities need moderate or major renovations.

And as the CO administrator with California Department of Social Services of the California Infrastructure Grant Program lifts our request totaling $1.0 billion for the $350 million of the Legislature allocated high quality facilities are often referred to as the third teacher and are key to creating the best learning environments for children and work environments for providers who work in them.

8752 would develop new spaces for children by removing red tape when developers are co locating new new housing with child care facilities modeled after SB234 which gives by right approval to family child care residential zones. AB 752 reflects a similar bill in Oregon where LIF is helping administer a colocation Fund.

As such, we've administered mirrored processes that we know are effective.

An example of where this bill could have made a difference is in the Central Valley where partners told us about hotels that have been converted into affordable affordable housing and they could have used this Bill to Help create ground floor child care more quickly and efficiently across the state. We're seeking ways to increase housing and build communities.

Co locating childcare and housing is one piece of a complicated puzzle and we ask for your support.

Thank you very much. You'll have two minutes to present.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee My name is Elmer Martinez. I serve as the Director of communications at the four Cs of San Mateo county and have the honor of serving my hometown, the City of Urban City, as its Mayor.

I'm here on my own behalf in strong support of AB752, a Bill that advances a practical solution to two interconnected challenges California is facing. Child care access and housing stability. AB752 enables more communities to co locate these essential services and it doesn't mandate a new structure.

Rather, it removes the friction that slows down what's already working in places like Redwood City. It ensures that local governments can prioritize family centered infrastructure and by recognizing child care centers co located with housing or civic amenities as a by right use.

Aligning zoning with public need In Redwood City, our City Council has continued to identify housing, transportation and children and youth as our strategic priorities. And co location is already a key part of our strategy to build a healthier, more resilient community.

Our City Council is committed to actively working to expand the availability of child care, often facilitating and advocating for the inclusion of those facilities in new housing development proposals. Despite these hurdles, since 2020, the city has approved three residential developments that include child care centers supporting up to 250 families. But this approach didn't happen by accident.

It took vision, collaboration across departments and active support from local leaders. AB752 will help streamline this process statewide, creating more opportunities for working families to access child care. From my county wide work in the child care sector, I see how co located sites don't just serve individual families, but they strengthen the entire system.

They improve supply by embedding child care development child care into plan development. So we see the number of available slots increase in areas of high need.

They reduce barrier access access barriers for parents, especially for those who have lower incomes or work early or late schedules and can access these services without juggling multiple locations or transit challenges and co locating models build trust by creating ecosystem systems of care where families find support, education, housing and health resources all in one place.

In San Mateo county, we know that child care access is foundational for the development of our youngest learners, but also for the working families who depend on these essential services. So I Urge your support of AB752 so more communities can better align their zoning for this critical public need. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We now take me to testimony in support of AB752. If you wish to express support for the bill, please state your name, organization, position.

Good morning. Elise Borth on behalf of the Silicon Valley Community foundation and strong support.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Moira Topp on behalf of the City of San Diego and support.

Good morning. Jeanette Carpenter on behalf of Child Action and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Esmeralda Martin Singh with the Low Income Investors Investment Fund and Build Up California and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 752, seeing no one else, will now take opposition witnesses.

So anyone wishing to express opposition to AB752 and seeing no one bring it back to the dais And I was very happy to support this bill in the Senate Human Services Committee and at the appropriate time happen to be make the motion when we relinquish the gavel to the Chair.

You know, I think this bill is one about making it easier to co locate childcare in new housing projects and residential developments. This is an essential service and amenity that should be part of how we're planning communities to make sure that we are providing affordable child care for working families.

We know there's a significant barrier to people accessing and staying employed. We also know it's critical for the social and emotional and educational development of kids as well.

And so I think all these provisions, the making it by right, the exemption from the taxes I think represents that we recognize childcare to be an essential function of the state and something that we should be encouraging through our policy. So thank you for introducing the bill. I'll turn over you to close. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Seyarto.

Okay, great. I just want to say I really. Appreciate your bill and your bills so. Far seem to be really well thought out. And this is something that in particular communities are in desperate need of so that people can put their kids in a secure place and allow them to work with a clear mind.

And so appreciate you bringing this bill to us and I'll be happy to support it with a motion.

See no further discussion. We have a motion by. Oh, I'll turn it back over to the Assembly room to close.

Thank you. This bill has no opposition and I simply respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. We will now call the roll on the motion by Senator Seyarto.

The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Floor.[ Roll Call]

That bill on call for absent Members. Thank you very much. I see our next authors here, so we'll proceed to file item 14 AB769 by Assemblymember Wilson.

And if there's anyone who's testifying in support of the bill, please join us here and I'll turn over you Assembly Member to present.

Good. Good morning everyone. Did I hear support? Support? Well then I will be really brief. I'm pleased in AB 769, a bill. To modernize and clean up the section. Of Public Resources Code governing regional park Districts, park and Open Space districts and open space districts.

The East Bay Regional Park District along with similar agencies play a critical role in preserving natural spaces while also providing valuable recreational opportunities for millions of Californians. However, existing applicable provisions in the PRC code are increasingly outdated and do not fully address the current demands of land management, governance or sustainable environmental practices.

Over time, it has become increasingly clear that administrative processes need to be more efficient. These updates will enhance governance, ensure adaptability and safeguard the long term sustainability of regional park resources. Additionally, I would like to thank the Chair and their Committee staff for their feedback and confirm that we will be accepting Committee amendments today.

With me is Jennifer Galehouse, who is present, who's representing the East Bay Regional Park District.

Hi, is this on? Okay. I always messed that up. My name is Jennifer Galehouse. I'm with the Environmental and Energy Consulting and we are here on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District which sponsors the bill. I'd like to thank the author for introducing it.

The East Bay Regional Park District spans over 127 acres and crosses Alameda and Contra Costa County. The district manages 200 miles of active transportation trails and. And that covers 3 million people and 33 counties. So with that in mind. 33 cities. Right, 33 cities. Did I say counties. Sorry. She knows. She knows.

I've been to a lot of the parks, but. And I'll skip over a bunch of stuff that you don't need to know, but it's an independent electric board. They each represent almost as many people as an Assembly District. So it's very large. This was first.

There's been a comprehensive overhaul of the enabling statute which went into Place in 1933. The Park District was established in 1934. This district and the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District sat down after the 90th anniversary of East Bay and looked at the statute and came up with some ideas how to make it run smoother.

They also conferred with some of their colleagues and partners and they came up with these efficiencies, the main ones that we're interested in. We increased the admin purchasing limit. It's now going to 150. At the request of the Committee you 'd be surprised how much equipment a park uses that goes over the 50,000 amount that we had.

Tractors, copy machines, bare protective trash, trash cans basically cost almost $150,000 each. So over the last five years, 200 different things had to go before the board for approval where the general manager could have just approved it himself. So that's a very important one for us.

There were also a lot of obsolete codes that no longer applied that we're getting rid of that were either project specific or just went away because no one was using them. And we're also updating some land exchange provisions so the board doesn't have to approve everything. The voters don't have to approve everything.

And we can actually trade property with other public agencies. And if we don't want to trade, we can get money to purchase park properties somewhere else. With that I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now take #MeToo testimony in support of AB769. If you're in support, please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Thank you. Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks Districts. And strong support. Thank you.

Noah Melroy, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to Express support for AB769? Seeing no one. Is there anyone in opposition to AB769? Seeing no opposition witnesses. I'll bring it back to the dais moved by Senator Syrto. Thank you for this bill.

Ford, as somebody represents part of the East Bay Regional Park District, I think these are important technical changes to allow the district to acquire land, you know, and to do the important work of actually maintaining this important district. So thank you for being here today. I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Thank you. And you know, this is just important for efficiencies. It still has the oversight and guidelines of the district. And as a result, because these are elected positions, the people. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Great. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto, the community assistant can please call the roll.

The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. We have three more bills left, so if Assembly Member Fong, Assembly Member Wallace or Assembly Member Ahrens can please come to the Committee room in room 113 of the Capitol. Whoever comes first we'll come to your Bill next. Yeah, why don't we lift calls on motions while we're waiting?

This is File item number one AB76. Alvarez. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. The current vote is 2-0 with the chair voting aye. [roll call]

Keep that Bill on call

4-0.

This is file item number two AB610. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-0 with the chair voting aye. [roll call]

Keep that Bill on call

3-0.

This is file item number 3 AB652. The motion is do pass as amended too the Senate Floor. The current vote is 2-0 with each chair voting aye. [roll call] 4-0.

We'll keep that bill on call.

This is File item number 4 AB93. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-0 with the chair voting aye. [roll call]

Keep that Bill on call.

3-1. This is file item number 7 AB1441. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-1 with the chair voting aye. [roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that phone call.

3-1. This is file item number 8 AB471. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. The current vote is 2-0. [roll call] 3-1.

Keep that Bill on call.

This is File item number 9 AB1108. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-0 with the chair voting aye. [roll call] 3-1.

That Bill on call.

This is file item number 12. No, wait. I'm sorry.

11

11. Do we have a motion

Oh, I'll move. Oh, I can't move it. Can somebody make a motion on file item 11 AB648 moved by Wiener. Thank you.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Floor. [roll call] 2-1.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Could we call the roll and consent?

Thank you.

Yes.

The consent calendar consists of File item number 6 AB457. File item number 10 AB532. File item number 19 AB1529. [roll call]

It's been moved already. Yeah, so we're just opening the roll.

[roll call]

We will keep consent on call. Are there any other bills that we need to record votes on? Did we do 12?

Yes, 12 has all of the votes.

Okay, so we'll do 13.

This is file item number 13 AB752. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. The current vote is 2-0. [roll call]