Senate Floor

Secretary will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present with the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery. Please rise. We will be led in prayer this afternoon by Senator Arreguin, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Let us bow our heads in prayer. Gracious God, you meet us in unexpected places. Traces of your grace are strewn all over our schedule. Puckered lives we ask to be stirred and disturbed towards soul satisfying results in our desires to serve you and our neighbor and even our enemy.

Oh God, of many surprises, make us glad of heart for each day's opportunities to bring our imagination and creativity to the disturbances that threaten to discourage us. We will continue to believe in the impossible. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance. Members, please welcome Senator Strickland's son Anthony, who is visiting the Senate Floor. Welcome to the Senate still under privileges of the floor. Senator Rubio, you are recognized for introduction of your guests.

Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, Today I'm so proud to introduce a remarkable leader, a trailblazer and a dear friend, Duarte Council Member Margaret Finley. Margaret is a pillar of strength, strength and unwavering advocacy for the San Gabriel Valley.

For 34 years, she has devoted herself to public service, becoming one of the longest serving women elected officials in our region. Her leadership has transformed lives and over the years, she's expanded services for our seniors, championed school improvements and worked to ensure that local governments truly were accessible and responsive to who they serve.

From tackling freeway noise to disrupting traffic jams, to addressing overcrowded parking, and also making sure that her seniors got taken care of. She always focused on reducing crimes, making sure that our communities were truly safe and good places to live. I really do admire her.

For all her years of service, she has consistently led with determination, but I think more importantly, with heart. She cares very much about her community and everything that she does. And in our region, she has also served in so many boards. She has brought her voice of to of our communities to every table that she sits on.

And she's always fighting to do the right thing. She's been recognized by local leaders. Though I do believe that those recognitions barely scratch the surface on her contributions. And they've been many. Margaret Finley's legacy is woven into the fabric of our beautiful City of DY and the entire Sano Valley.

Please help me recognize Margaret Finley for her 34 years of extraordinary service and leadership. Thank you.

Congratulations, Council Member Finley. Senator Rubio, you are recognized for introduction of your second guest.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I'm proud to recognize the Doherty Rotary Club Club not just for their service, but for the role they played in changing history. In 1978, the Doherty Rotary Club became the first Rotary club in the country to admit women into their. Into their circles.

That decision led to a long court battle. And in 1987 a US Supreme Court ruled finally that that opened the doors for women to join across the country and the world. Even more than that, in the same year the Duarte Rotary Club elected Sylvia Whitlock as club President.

So she became the first woman President of any club in the entire country. And I've had the honor of meeting Sylvia many times. And I'm so grateful for having the opportunity to be in the presence of such history maker. They've continued to lead ever since. The club sponsors many scholarships, supports youth programs and and helps local families.

They call themselves the little club that roared. The battle was massive. It was heard internationally. It had a global impact. And still they prevailed. So I'm very proud of the club. They finally earned that title of the little club that roared on the floor.

With us today, we have current President Rosa Joaquin and soon to be President tomorrow, Larry Brasida. Please, please help me congratulate them and welcome them into our Senate Floor. Once again they are making an impact not just in the City of Doherty, but beyond. And they have left an indelible mark once again.

Help me welcome them to the floor. Thank you.

Congratulations and welcome to the Senate. We are now moving from. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports from the committees Secretary, please read.

Madam President. The Committee on Budget and fiscal review to which we're referred. AB 130 131 139 140 reports the same back with the recommendation do pass. Scott Wiener, chair above Bills ordered to second reading.

We will go back to privileges of the floor. Senator Umberg, you are recognized for introduction of your guest.

Well, thank you very much Madam President and colleagues. This is a sad day for me and a happy Day, I think, for the Koenig family, it's a sad day for me because my right arm is going off to other challenges, other adventures. Jackie Koenig began here in the California Legislature 24 years ago. I know that seems impossible.

She obviously was in high school when she began her service here in the Legislature. She began as my Chief of Staff, and then she became consigliere. Those of you who are familiar with Sopranos or the Godfather know that reference.

Somebody you rely upon for counsel, someone you rely upon for judgment, someone you rely upon to basically keep things in order in your own head and in your office. She has been, for those of you who follow baseball, all. She has been the Shohei Ohtani of our office, sort of can do all things.

She's here today to basically help us, to allow us to recognize her service to so many people in the Legislature. And she's here with a number of folks, including those in our office, who know and love her. Her family's here. Her oldest son, Carter. Carter, raise your hand. Henry. Henry, where's your sunglasses? Henry's here. Gracie. Gracie's here.

Of course. Dave, her husband, and her mother, Joyce Boland is also here. Moms get all the credit for the good things that their kids do, and so therefore, you get lots of credit. Mom also is Dan Koenig, father in law. Who's up in the gallery? Jessica Boland's sister, Travis Coburn, Jessica's husband and brother in law.

Jessica and Travis's children, Veda and Jack, are up there. There's Veda and Jack up in the gallery. Jackie's career has been in the Assembly and in the Senate. In the Assembly, she's worked for the following Assembly. Miguel Santiago, Raul Bachonegg Negra, Freddy Rodriguez, Bonnie Lowenthalp, Pedro Nava, Joe Nation, and Ted Lempert.

That spans basically the time I was here in the Legislature when we needed someone. I'd been out of the Legislature for 12 years, someone to help us sort of get organized and to get me organized. Jackie was that person.

She is a proud alumna of the University of California at Berkeley, and unfortunately, also an alumna of USC for her master's degree. We've all been lucky, the entire Senate's been lucky to have Jackie here and have her service, but particularly our office.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I ask you to recognize Jackie Koenig for her service here in the California State Senate. Thank you, Jackie.

Congratulations to you and your family Members. We will now take a very brief recess.

Members, we are going to go to motions and resolutions at this time to address an adjourn in memory. I am going to ask that if you must continue to talk, please take your conversations to the back of the room. Senator Niello, you are recognized for your adjourned memory.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you for creating a little bit quieter space for me because I rise to adjourn in the memory of Roy Jacobs. He is a longtime friend of mine and many, many others in Sacramento. Roy was born in Marysville, raised in Sacramento. He attended C.K.

Mcclatchy High School, where he met his longtime friend Tony Kennedy, who later became a U.S. Supreme Court justice. From there, Roy went to Cal Go Bears where he played football and rugby. He graduated with a degree in speech and economics. He continued to play rugby with his Cal teammate and future brother in law, Fritz Brown.

Fritz married Roy's sister Brenda. They played for the university club which won the Monterey Rugby Tournament in 1962. He and Fritz even coached, leading the Sacramento State men's rugby team to a winning season in 1968. He met the love of his life, Lori Hand, at a friend's 21st birthday party.

They married two years later, raised three kids together, and celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary of last November. After college, Roy went on to serve in the Army Reserves at Fort Ord and went to work then for his automobile dealer father at RJ Lincoln Mercury.

Wanting to be on his own, he started Jacobs Hughes Leasing Company with his good friend Tom Hughes. He and Tom later purchased Yuba City, Toyota, Lincoln Mercury. So he returned to the dealership business. He remained an active Cal supporter all his life.

He was a trustee of the Berkeley Foundation, president of both the Sacramento Grid Club, and Sacramento Alumni Club for many years, served as a director of the Alumni Association and was a member of the Big C Society, Bear Backers, Golden Bear Athletic Fund, and Pappy's Boys.

For some of the older people in here, that's Pappy Waldorf who coached at Cal. In 1998, he received a California Alumni Association citation and in 1995 he received the prestigious Wheeler Oak Meritorious Award for fundraising for Cal. Being the founder and chairperson of Cal parents, his two sons became third generation Old Blues.

That's what we call graduates of the University of California at Berkeley. Closer to home, Roy served as president of the Sacramento Children's Home Board and was president of the Sutter Club during its 100 year celebration. As I said, Roy and I were very good friends.

We sometimes would compete over car deals, but in the evening we were great friends and socialized together at the Sutter Club and at Sacramento's unique Grandfather's Club.

He will be especially missed by his wife, Lori, sons RJ And Charlie, daughter Caroline Murphy and her husband, Christopher Murphy and his very special grandson Hooper Murphy, and of course many, many others. Please join me in adjourning this meeting eventually in honor of Roy Jacobs.

Thank you, Senator. Condolences to you and his family for your loss. Please make sure to bring his name to the front so he can be properly memorialized. Members, without objection, we will move to our supplemental file. Secretary, please give Assembly Bill 130 a second reading.

Assembly Bill 130 by the Assembly Committee on Budget, an act related to housing and making an appropriation, therefore to take effect immediately. Bill related to the budget.

Secretary, please read.

Assembly Bill 130 by the Assembly Committee on Budget, an act related to housing and making an appropriation, therefore to take effect immediately. Bill related to the budget.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized. Her desk.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise to present AB 130 which is a the housing budget trailer bill. It has three overarching themes, all focused on affordability. First, together with ABSB 131, this bill further furthers our drive to make it faster, cheaper, and more efficient to build housing in California.

Second, the bill implements policies to protect homeowners against unfair and unreasonable fees and costs. And finally, the bill adopts innovative new strategies to fund more affordable housing production with regard to producing housing faster, more efficiently, and at lower cost.

The bill removes the sunset provisions from a series of statutes that facilitate housing production, puts a temporary pause on changes to building codes and standards with exceptions for issues like emergency health and safety, and provides that CEQA does not apply to environmentally friendly infill housing development projects so long as they meet basic requirements including tribal consultation and specified labor standards.

With regard to protecting homeowners against unfair or unreasonable fees and costs, this bill will prevent HOAs from stopping the construction of ADUs by charging fees. It'll limit the penalties that HOAs can charge for for their members for violations. It establishes procedures procedural protections for homeowners against abusive practices frequently associated with so called zombie mortgages.

Regarding innovative ways to finance more affordable housing. The bill establishes an optional program through which developers have the possibility of addressing vehicle mile traveled mitigation that they must do by contributing into the Transit Oriented Development Program at HDD. And it authorizes affordable housing developers to access equity in their existing portfolios to finance other affordable housing projects.

This bill is a significant step forward in our efforts to drive down the cost of housing and drive up its availability. I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam President. I have a question of the author.

Will the author take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. In exchange with a very good friend of mine who also happens to be a lobbyist, he raised some issues with regard to mortgages, particularly second mortgages that's in this bill that I was not aware of.

And I'm not fully conversant with all of the details, but it creates a problem that evidently could do away with second mortgages, nobody wanting to offer them. My question is, has anybody reviewed for constitutional purposes, those particular sections of AB 130?

Through the. Through the chair?

You may proceed.

Thank you. We believe that this provision is constitutional. We understand that there is opposition that is stating the contrary, but we believe it passes constitutional muster and this will provide important procedural protections for people with these zombie second mortgages. We know that there was so much abuse during.

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, and now we're seeing these zombie mortgages be resurrected via debt collectors. We believe that this provision does pass constitutional muster, and of course, if folks disagree, then they can exercise their legal remedies, as is the rate of any resident of California.

So that you know the lobbyist. Everybody here knows Mike Belo, and he's very knowledgeable of these issues.

And the information I'm getting is that there can be certifications required that no mortgage lender in their right mind would certify to, and it affects existing mortgages as well as future mortgages, putting in doubt future mortgages, and also potentially a taking of existing mortgages.

And it's his opinion, and it kind of sounds to me like it's a reasonable opinion that this is indeed unconstitutional.

Everyone's. Through the chair?

You may proceed.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I have a lot of respect for Mr. Belo, but we believe that this passes constitutional muster, and anyone who disagrees has every right in the world to exercise their legal remedies, and that's. That's their right to do it. But we. We believe that this passes constitutional muster.

I suggest that this is a serious enough question that it would justify a no vote on AB 130.

Thank you. Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of AB 130. However, I did want to state for the record, as I mentioned to the chair earlier today, it's my understanding when this bill went across the desk, there were still some outstanding questions regarding tribal consultation. So it's my hope that we will resolve those issues in short order.

The appropriate stakeholders will come together and come upon agreement of final resolution, but I do support and will continue to support AB130.

Thank you. Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized.

Thank you Madam President. I rise today in respectful opposition to AB 130. These are the sorts of issues that we shouldn't be legislating through the budget process. These are policy issues that should be discussed and afforded to the public to weigh in.

We're making broad complex policy changes with long term impacts and that deserves our public hearings and the real input. Thus reflecting on our delay today as well. So let us be clear. In this bill, the Vehicle Miles Traveled mitigation program is laying the groundwork for yet another tax.

It is a policy piece that is put into this bill that has not been able to be weighed on by the public. We are tying driving habits to housing because of legislate.

Because this legislature continues to try to dictate how people live and how far they commute, where they can build, and what choices they are allowed to make. That's not making California affordable again. And it's not the role of government to dictate these decisions for people.

It's the role of government to make this state a affordable place for Californians to live. I want to thank the senator from San Pedro for bringing up the notion of the concerns about the tribal cultural protections. It does allow projects to bypass CEQA with only a 45 day tribal consultation period.

And that simply is not enough for meaningful engagement, especially with when many tribes are managing dozens of consultation requests with limited staff. Developers don't have to reach agreement. They just have to wait out the clock. And even with the so called protections that this bill falls short of, they require monitoring and consultation, but only under tight deadlines.

So these binding agreements are only included if they reach in, if they're reached in time. So I would love to see some fixes to that area as well. If the project. If there's not agreements during the time frame, the project will move forward.

And this creates a box checking process that leaves our tribal governments with no real authority over their own cultural resources. So I'd like to rise to support tribes who are not just stakeholders, but they're sovereign governments. They're governments that under AB 130 would be weakened.

The decades of progress that have been made between the states and our tribal nations in favor of bureaucracy over local control. So this will set up future burdens for our working Californians and not solve the affordability crisis here in California. So for these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to rise in support of AB 130. I know that the both of our budget chair as well as the budget chair and the assembly, and our leadership, along with assembly leadership, has been working very hard on getting this together and has taken amendments.

I know, as has already been mentioned, the concerns raised around tribal consultation. That was something that came up today when we were in our Budget Committee. And I know that the chair recognized that that was an issue that does need further discussion, that does need to be resolved and appreciate that.

You know, it is my first time participating in this budget process, and it's been really interesting to watch this process go on and to see such big, large pieces of policy take place within the budget and certainly hope that in the future that we'll be able to run these through the regular policy process.

But understand that there are some issues that we've been looking to make movement on, such as a CEQA exemption, particularly for building housing, building affordable housing. We know that that serves as a major barrier for construction of new housing.

And I think for a long time, all of us, especially for those of us that have served in local government, have seen, you know, CEQA unfortunately be used to block many projects, including those that had lots of support. So I do think that that's a huge positive of this bill.

In addition to that, one of the things that was not included in the original budget proposal was HAPP funding. That's our housing assistance and prevention programs. And I'm very happy that that's now been added back in.

And what we see included here is not just funding for the HAPP program so that we could continue to provide shelter, so that we can continue to ensure that our unhoused folks are being brought inside, but it also provides oversight and accountability, making sure that we're analyzing and reporting on performance metrics, which is incredibly important to see how these dollars are working.

I know all of us in this room constantly receive questions from our constituents about what is the impact and what is the investment of our tax dollars and how have they actually been applied to reduce homelessness overall? And they deserve answers. We should be able to get them those answers.

So making it very clear on how those performance metrics are going to be done. I think there's probably more work to be done here around how that data is pointed out as well as oversight of some of these shelters.

I know there's been lots of reporting recently on some of the current quality of the shelters and issues that we've seen occur within these locations.

As I've mentioned before, this is an area that's very important to me, given that I have several family members that have experienced homelessness and know that sometimes these shelters, when not managed well, can also be a place of concern for folks, too. So very happy that that oversight is included within this bill too.

So, you know, grateful with all of the work that's gone into this, I know that there's still some work to be done and appreciate that our budget chair has acknowledged that and that we've kept these conversations going. Urge an I vote, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the senate. Today I rise also in support of AB 130, which is a critical budget trailer bill that recognizes the dire housing challenges that so many of our communities are facing. And it is really important that we recognize that.

We understand not every need was met and there's so many challenges still ahead of us. And you know, we all wish that we could have addressed every single issue.

As already mentioned, you know, the tribal consultation and mortgages and the list kind of goes on and on, but we have to also recognize the dire times that we find ourselves in. And it's important for me to at least point out some of the provisions that I think are important to our communities.

For example, this bill will adjust and expand, expand the renters tax credit, offering meaningful relief to our low income families, seniors, and individuals who are struggling just to keep up. And that was important. This is not just about money. It's about a roof over someone's head. It's about stability.

And especially, like I mentioned, at a time where we have so much housing insecurity and homelessness and it continues to rise, it's not getting better. These credits help ensure that our most vulnerable residents are not left behind.

This budget is also important because we know that as the federal government keeps cutting and cutting funding for so many of our programs, the tax credits are going to become even more important.

And by providing this modest but vital financial cushion to renters earning very little, especially those in most need, this bill gives working families, single parents, seniors, the chance to stay housed, stay stable and be hopeful. This reflects a lot of our California values, but we recognize that we still have a lot of work to do.

And, and again, it was already mentioned that these conversations are not over. We'll continue to have these discussions. And with that, I ask for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise as the chair of the budget subcommitee with the responsibility for this trailer bill. And this trailer bill is actually quite simple. It includes three pieces. One is the affordability bill that the senate passed overwhelmingly at a house of origin. Two, it includes the building code reforms from the assembly.

And then third, the most important CEQA reforms in the infill housing space that the legislature has ever contemplated. And all three deserve our support. Senator Wahab's affordability. Sorry, the senator from Hayward's affordability provisions around affordability, principally for renters, is a critical part of this package, but also the C Corp. provisions for infill housing.

This bill makes clear that rather than trying to do 1,000 cuts over time, that we're going to open the door for substantial investments in housing to make housing more affordable throughout California.

There was a recent study out that shows that it isn't the case that Houston and the south and other places are better at producing housing than us. Or at least that that's not changing because each of those states also has laws that are kind of CEQA like.

And as a result, their non sprawl housing is slowing down to the same crawl that our non sprawl housing has been. And it's one more piece of evidence that we have to tackle this at the core. So this bill is an important step forward.

I will say also that this bill, in conjunction with the next bill that we'll be taking up, do represent the most profound, deepest, most comprehensive secret reform to promote housing development this legislature has ever undertaken. And it's about time. But it also means this, that next we have to address financing.

We need to pass a bond. Like we can't only streamline. We have to make sure that we're stepping up with the other pieces that are necessary to make sure that the housing we're opening the door to actually gets built. And so this is an important first step.

We will also need to make the investments we made last week in the budget and in a bond coming up.

And then lastly, I just want to join with a senator from San Pedro in calling for a resolution of the issue around tribal consultation and enforceable agreements as we clean up, as we do cleanup legislation to follow this in the weeks coming forward. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I rise with concerns. A recognition certainly of the hard work that's been done here on advancing housing and agree with senator from West Sacramento on a number of the provisions related to infill and otherwise. We do want to see abundance here in housing. We do need growth.

But why we would pursue that growth in a way that doesn't ensure that we're also being efficient and that we're designing our buildings in a way that save people money is confounding to me. I do not know why this bill includes a restriction both on local government and on the state from adopting updated building standards.

Why we would want to permit a bunch of new gas pipelines going to all these developments and furthering our dependence on foreign gas? I don't know. Why we want to force people in a situation where they're stuck with inefficient appliances and their bills go up every month?

Fine, you have some new housing, but your monthly bills are high now because somehow we've tied the hands of local government in the state and thought that that's streamlining. Not all streamlining actually promotes efficiency, especially those that got the efficiency standards. This needs cleanup. It needs addressing before this session is complete.

I know in cities and counties I represent, they're trying to go even through a fire rebuild right now and their lights keep going off because of public power shut offs. And all they want to do is be able to have an integrated system, maybe have a micro grid or be able to underground or connect their homes.

All this sets that further back and ties local government's hands. So still trying to decide what I'm going to do with this legislation. I just, I feel like those issues need to be raised.

And I hope that the author is open to some conclusion that will address what we can expect to see on cleanup on that front going forward. Thanks.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I. I know that the vehicle miles trav traveled issue was brought up today on the floor. And I want you to know that, you know, we personally, I personally vetted that in committee. 50 ways to Sunday. Right.

I mean, demanded, shall maybe required every word that you could possibly think of that would require somebody to do this. As a developer, it was very clear that the language shows that it is an option. It is not a requirement.

It is not in addition to, but it is an option for developers to use a fund in order to address the mitigation for CEQA or mitigation for the vehicle miles traveled. Not CEQA, I apologize. But it's an option. It is not an additional cost to business development.

It is just a option they can choose to use or not choose to use. So respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam President. I do appreciate the senator from Bakersfield clarifying the reality that the VMT piece of this bill is completely voluntary. It's just an additional way for a developer to comply with the existing VMT mitigation requirements. Someone you can love or hate the existing requirements, but this doesn't change those requirements.

It simply provides another option. Colleagues, I want to really just say that this bill, particularly the infill housing CEQA exemption, is transformational.

And I want to really thank, from the bottom of my heart, the Assembly Member from Oakland, who is right near the border of Berkeley, I think, who is here today, who worked hard all year on this, and it will do what we should have done a long time ago, to acknowledge that when you are building housing in an existing community that is environmentally beneficial. It is climate friendly. That is not something that should be subjected to potentially endless CEQA challenges and lawsuits.

And so I am so, so grateful for her leadership. And I'm so grateful to our leadership, leadership of the assembly and the governor for including this piece in particular in AB 130. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[roll call]

I's, 28. No's, 5. The measure passes. Members, can we please give a very, very happy birthday to Senator Ochoa Bogh? Today is her birthday. We will now move to motion. We will now move to motions, resolutions and notices. Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I request unanimous consent to withdraw Senate Bill 47 from engrossing enrolling and return. The measure to the Assembly for further action.

Desk will note and without objection, the Senate journals for June 232025 through June 272025 will be approved as corrected by the Minute Clerk. Senator Choi, for what reason do you rise?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. At the request of the authors, I request that the file, items 84 and. 85, Assembly Bill 990, and Assembly Bill 437, be moved to the inactive file.

Thank you. Desk will note. Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I move to suspend Senate Rule 29.4 as it relates to Senate Bill 139 and Senate Bill 140.

Senator. Senator Ashby, you are recognizing.

Any objection to suspending the rules? Seeing none, rules are suspended. Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to pull File item number 92 AB677 from the consent calendar at the request of the author. Please. Please.

Thank you. Desk will note. We will now move to consideration of the daily file. Second reading. File will be deemed read. We will now move to Assembly. Third reading. Secretary, please read file item 40.

Assembly Joint Resolution 10 by Assembly Member Rogers relative to the United States Forest Service.

Thank you. Senator Limon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members, I am rise today to present AJR10 on behalf of Assembly Member Rogers. National Forest lands cover over 20 million acres in the state while providing federal.

Providing several sources of water, holding critical ecosystems for many species and creating over 30,000 jobs in our state recently, due to massive wildfire impacts in our state forest. In our state forest and federal staff and budget cuts, our national forest and local communities that rely directly on them are all facing great risk.

The resolution highlights the deep importance for our state forests to our communities and our economy and the opposition of the state Legislature against defunding critical wildfire prevention measures and staff cuts to the National Forest Service. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 38, noes zero. That measure passes. Members, please give us a moment while we prepare our final supplemental file for today. Senator Arreguin, would you like to do your Committee announcement?

Thank you, Madam President. The Senate Committee on human services will meet immediately after adjournment in room 2200. So Members, please get there expediently so we can begin our Bill presentations.

Thank you. We will take a short recess while we print the supplemental file. Do not leave the building. Senators, please return to your desk. Senators, we are going to reconvene in 30 seconds. Please return to your desk. Senators, we will be taking up Senate supplemental file number two, which is on your desk. Whip.

Secretary, please read as any messages from the Assembly.

Madam President, I am directed to inform your honorable body that the Assembly amended and on this day passed as amended Senate Bill 129 131 139 140 and respectfully request your honorable body to concur in said amendment. Sue Parker, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, above bill's orders of unfinished business.

Thank you. We will begin with file item 95, SB 129.

Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 129 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review in equality to labor and making an appropriation therefore to take effect immediately bill related to the budget.

Thank you. Senator Wiener, you're recognized.

Thank you. Madam President, Colleagues. AB1 or, excuse me. SB 129 is the labor trailer bill. This bill was re.

This bill was recently amended and the remaining provision specifies that the $3.3 million appropriation in the 2025 Budget act to the Department of Human Resources shall be available only upon enactment of legislation specifying the use of those funds or AB 283 in the 2025 regular legislative session. Other technical changes as well. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please clear the screen. We will start that roll call, over. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Arreguin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Cervantes, aye. Choi, no. Cortese, aye. Dahle. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson, aye. Grove. Hurtado, aye. Jones. No. Laird, aye. Limon, aye. Mcguire, aye. McNerney, aye. Menjivar, aye. Niello. Ochoa, aye. Padilla. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto. No. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Strickland. No. Umberg, aye. Valadares. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Dahle. Grove. Niello. Padilla. Aye. Reyes. Valladares.

Ayes: 30 no's: 5. Assembly amendments are concurred in. We will now move to file item 96, SB131.

Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 131 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and Equaling to Public Resources and making an appropriation, therefore to take effect immediately. Bill related to the budget.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise today to present Senate Bill 131. If California is ever going to truly tackle our crisis of affordability, we need to build an abundance of housing, child care centers, transportation, water, infrastructure, broadband, and all of the things that make life better and more affordable for people.

SB131 does not, certainly does not, fix every problem with our environmental review system in California, but it does make a number of thoughtful, targeted and powerful improvements to make it easier to build the things that families need most here in California, while preserving the very important safeguards that CEQA provides to communities against the impacts of projects that oppose an acute environmental threat.

All too often, despite the importance of ceqa, CEQA has been abused as a tool of vetocracy to block and delay projects for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the environment.

The latest example is a food bank in Alameda which was recently sued under CEQA to stop construction of its new facility in downtown Alameda, one of the most developed areas in the state. The local business owners filing the lawsuit sought to preserve a, quote, historically historic parking lot.

Food bank leaders have warned that the lawsuit could put at risk their services to provide food for 1200 families, free school lunches and unhoused people.

The law has been used to kill 500 units of housing proposed on a valley parking lot in downtown San Francisco, one block from a BART station, and to obstruct 200 tiny homes for the unhoused here in Sacramento, it's been used to hold up projects that are absolutely essential to protecting our environment and meeting our climate goals, including solar farms in San Diego, a wind farm in Lompoc.

In Lompoc. And a bike network for the city and County of San Francisco. Today, preparing a full Environmental Impact report under CEQA can take a year or multiple years and can cost $1.0 million or more.

A lawsuit for an alleged failure to comply with CEQA takes two years on average to resolve, and it can take far longer before a contested project can proceed, adding further expense and at times killing the project entirely. The mere threat of a lawsuit distorts the entire CEQA process.

From the beginning, because the law is so broad, status quo, CEQA allows anyone at all, anyone, to hold projects hostage to whatever demands they feel like making, since getting sued under CEQA can cause a project to die on the vine.

Colleagues, the simple truth is that no one, not any of us here today, not any of our predecessors in the Legislature, and certainly not our constituents, voted to create CEQA as it exists today.

No one voted to make it apply to every project that the government so much as issues a permit for, even projects having nothing to do with the environment. No one voted to extend standing to anyone, identified or unidentified, who happens to have a lawyer.

Those aspects of CEQA make it far broader than environmental review laws in other states. These decisions were made by courts. It happened over time, layer upon layer upon layer of process.

And ceqa, as important as it is, and it plays an important role in protecting the environment, but has also become a tool that has held back California's progress around housing and so many other issues. Last year, the Little Hoover Commission wrote in their CEL report, quote, like any law cell, can have damaging, often unintended consequences.

While CEQA remains an essential tool to protect the state's environment, it can be improved through targeted, limited reforms. That is what AB excuse me, SB 131 does. In addition to providing funding for HAPP, it also reduces the cost of building housing, child care, advanced manufacturing facilities, and other facilities to improve California health clinics as well.

Colleagues, I know that there has been a lot of discussion about this bill, and that is healthy. This CEQA is an incredibly important and impactful law in California. It accomplishes good, but it also creates challenges. And this Legislature for years and years has struggled to make meaningful changes to it. SB 131 does that.

It does not destroy CEQA, contrary to some of the very, very melodramatic claims that have been made out there.

It provides some targeted reforms that will make CEQA possible better, will make it harder to abuse, it will create fewer gotcha moments and will help create so many of the things that California needs and California families need to survive and thrive.

I do just want to say, and I said this in Committee, there are a few issues, three issues, actually. One of them was more about the previous Bill, AB 130 that we voted on. Two relate to this bill. Three areas that will be a continuing topic of conversation. We had a really strong and robust conversation.

And Budget Committee, I'm very appreciative to feedback from clients, from clients, from, from colleagues, from Members of the public, from stakeholders.

And so we will be absolutely The Senate, I know, is committed to looking really closely at the tribal consultation issues, which again, were not so much about this bill, but about the previous bill, around the habitat and endangered species issue and around advanced manufacturing. These are all important issues.

We want to make sure that we get them right and we're committed to doing the work to make sure we're getting it right. Colleagues, this is a very good bill. It's an impactful bill. If it weren't impactful, we would not have had some of the push and pull that we saw today in Budget Committee.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Niello. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm not going to debate the policy of the bill except for the fact that it's policy in the budget about which we're hearing a lot more lately, you might notice. But what concerns me about this is the way that it came about and the compromise of the co equal status of our governmental institutions.

Some of you may think that I'm shadow boxing here, but the Governor initially declared that he would not sign the budget unless this Bill was passed. In talking with legislative leaders, obviously they acquiesced. And it's actually in the budget that the budget says if this bill doesn't pass, it invalidates the rest of the budget.

But the point is it was the Governor who initiated that. Now, I don't know how many other people were part of that discussion as to that specific point in the budget. But it is absolutely unprecedented for the Governor to essentially dictate what happens with a budget, the entire budget, for the sake of one bill.

I doubt that that's ever happened before. And what concerns me is once the Governor makes a declaration like that, being the co-equal branch, I think it's important to say, Governor, you can't tell the Legislature what to do. That has to be a collaborative effort. And I haven't seen it as a collaborative effort.

For that reason alone, I think that this bill deserves a no vote.

Thank you, pro tem. Senator McGuire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam President. And to this body, I'd like to talk a little bit about the budget.

I'm not going to go into what I said the other day, but some General statements and say that bottom line is this year's budget puts people first and it's an investment in the people and programs that help make this state great. And I'd like to talk about what's in front of us now.

And it's no secret, no secret that we have challenges right here in the Golden State. And I think that if you were to ask any one of us, no matter if you're from the great City of Los Angeles or the City of Reading, one of the biggest challenges that we face is affordable workforce housing.

And to a t, everyone, Democrat or Republican, is focused on helping people make a California dream. But I also want to be candid. The votes that are in front of us today, they're not easy. They're not easy because there are a lot of complicated issues that are in these bills today, whether it's SB131 or AB130. It's tough.

And by the way, I am so grateful to this body for the discussion that we have all had had publicly amongst ourselves with stakeholders in our communities. And what I've heard loud and clear is that this is a crisis because working families are priced out of the communities that they love and where we are all focused.

We want to make it easier for folks to be able to work where they live. And we all know that housing at every level is the foundation to a healthy economy. Without it, nothing works.

And in recent years, there's been significant progress that's been made, making major investments and critical strides to boost home ownership and increase housing stock. This Legislature has been laser focused on that.

And this year's budget, by the way, backs up that progress to with Action not talk, investing 300 million in our first time first generation home buyers program, boosting affordable housing programs with 500 million of low income tax credits and 120 million for the multi family housing affordable housing program, combating the state's homelessness crisis with 600 million to local governments and tribal governments.

And thanks to so many in this room, we're moving forward with that. But I think we also need to be honest with ourselves. We know that we have a lot more work to do to help folks live the American dream.

For decades, hardworking families have had to make tough choices to be able to scrape by, to keep the lights on and the roof over their head. And as I look around in front of me today, so many of you have championed these efforts. Better wages, access to health care, better jobs. And today we're talking about housing.

And I gotta tell you, housing is getting tougher. We got tariffs on lumber, ruthless Ayes raids causing terror in our communities, and the unrelenting chaos coming from Washington, D.C. we've heard the stories. We felt the frustration and seen the struggle.

And that's why we are advancing a spending plan that will create more workforce housing at a scale not seen in decades in the Golden State. Is SB 131 perfect? No, no bill is. But I do believe it's bold. I believe it's forward thinking.

And we need to cut costs and delays and streamline approval to get housing in our economy moving, get it off the ground. So let's talk about what's in this bill. Making sure that we are building farm worker housing faster. That's something that we should all agree upon. Making sure that we're providing disadvantaged communities with clean drinking water.

Deploying broadband on local city roads and streets. That's what this bill will do. Food banks and food pantries, getting them built faster. Childcare facilities, getting them built faster. Parks in our communities, getting them built faster. And we talk about health care all the time. We gotta get federally qualified health centers built faster.

Rural health centers and tribal health centers. And this bill does just that. And like I said in Friday, it's easy to say no when you can take credit for yes. And I hope all of us are going to be looking forward to ribbon Cuttings for new affordable housing in these critical infrastructure projects in the months to come.

I want to end it with this. Getting this agreement across the finish line was a challenge. And so many on this floor today are stretching. They're stretching. They're putting their necks out. This is not easy, but nothing worth doing in this world is easy. And that's why I want to say thank you to so many.

You're putting the values we believe in first.

I'm going to end it right here. I don't talk about it much, but my mom and I struggled growing up. My mom and dad had a bad divorce and we struggled with housing. And a lot of folks look where I represent. And there are some communities that definitely have issues with new housing and how we build housing.

But when you see struggle as a kid, you want to change it as an adult. And this budget isn't about politics. This Bill isn't about politics. It's about people.

It's about uplifting our communities and growing our economy and giving Californians a fair shot, a shot that my mom and I and so many in this room who all have stories of struggle faced growing up. But because in California, we stand strong for working families, we take on big challenges with bold solutions.

Do we always get it right? No. But we power the strongest economy in the nation. We lift up those who have been left behind. And we don't need one trillion dollar bailout to get get it done. As we move forward, are we going to need to work on some key issues within these bills? Damn right we are.

And I want to talk about the commitment here publicly. I think that there are three major areas that we're going to need to be able to work on going forward with our partners, our partners in the Assembly. And I want to take a moment to say thank you to Speaker Revis for all of his work.

I want to say thank you to the Governor for his work as well. We're going to need to continue working with tribal leaders who are partners in all of this, on these bills, full stop. Heard a lot about the issue of advanced manufacturing. Are we going to need to be able to continue to work on that?

You're damn right we are. That's why I'm standing up to be able to give my word here today. I've also heard from folks that we need to work on the Endangered Species Act.

That is an issue that we're going to need to continue to focus in on in the weeks and months to come before we leave this session in September. These three issues will be a priority going forward.

But I think the message that we are sending today, the number one priority, getting folks in homes, in the communities they love in making our economy work for everyone. And that's what these bills are all about.

I apologize that I got a little emotional here today, but it is very personal for me and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, pro tem. Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. And want to thank again, our President pro tem for his really touching and powerful remarks. I rise in support, but also want to express some concerns around AB 131.

And, you know, I think much of this was discussed today in our Budget Committee and have appreciated, I think, both the budget chair as well as our pro tem for really listening and trying to hear out these, these concerns and recognize that these are conversations that will continue to be ongoing.

And I think we've heard that from our leadership today and really want to recognize that, you know, first and foremost, I know many of my constituents have reached out to me to express concerns over advanced manufacturing being included within CEQA exemptions.

You know, as was mentioned before by the good Senator from San Francisco, I think we all recognize and understand that CEQA has served as an impediment to build housing, particularly affordable housing in places where it makes sense. It's been used to block affordable housing and parking lots. That's absurd.

And so we know that we need to fix it. We know that we need reforms in this particular area.

Some of the things that are listed here, you know, in addition to housing being included, are specified wildfire risk reductions, daycare centers, rural health clinics, all places that I think we recognize are important components of our communities and are very, very necessary.

Food banks, as was mentioned before, and we've seen examples of CEQA being used to block food banks and food pantries. But then advanced manufacturing is included, and I don't quite know if it belongs here along with the rest of those items.

You know, as we discussed in Committee, advanced manufacturing does not include oil, but what it does include is electronics, semiconductors, industrial biotechnology. And so this in many ways is big tech. And I think there are many valid concerns around what that will mean.

Unfortunately, we have seen over the last year just the amount that these big tech companies consume, especially when it comes to energy and, and the impact that these companies have on surrounding communities.

And so I know several advocates have requested further clarity on this and this definition and what that will mean to have streamlining, particularly for that industry. In addition to that, there were questions about the impacts that this would have on endangered species, their identification and the Endangered Species Act.

I know that was a robust discussion that we had in Budget Committee as well. And to be perfectly honest, I've not even had an opportunity to dive deeper into that issue because much of this language we just received a few days ago.

Finally, you know, I know this has been discussed already, but the importance of including the tribal consultation piece and getting clarity around that, I think is very necessary, as well as labor standards, I think is also an, an incredibly critical component.

So once again, just want to recognize, I think the effort that our leadership has put in and trying to hear out some of those concerns.

I wish we had had more time to review some of this language and offer that feedback, but understand that that's going to be an ongoing process and appreciate the commitment that we've heard from our leaders to continue to engage with stakeholders.

I know this is something that's so important for my community, especially those that are in the Foothills area, right up against our San Gabriel Mountains and that have been so impacted by the fires. So with that and with those commitments, we'll be voting aye and urge and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you. Madam President. Colleagues, I do rise in support of SB131, but I do have a question for the author if he is willing.

Will the author take a question?

Yes

you may proceed.

Thank you. And I want to extend to the author my appreciation for some prior conversations on the same topic. I'll bring up. I want to clarify that SB131 does not exempt lands under habitat conservation plans, which are up and in place, stood up and in place in several parts of California, including Santa Clara County.

We have about 12,000 acres of land plus some additional land that the habitat conservation plan covers. It has its own master EIR and of course that expedites development. It allows folks to come right in and develop so long as they are willing to pay for the mitigation, to pay the mitigation bank to take advantage of that.

I want to make sure that the provisions in this Bill don't bump or usurp the statute that creates the HCP's.

That's correct. And that is under Section 5 or Section, excuse me, Section 5, which amends Section 21067.5 subsection N as in Nancy. So it's in there. I'll show it to you too. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. If it's in a section

You are correct.

If it's in a section I, a code section, I'm, I'm comfortable with that. If I can just follow up with the second part of the question which has to do with urban growth boundaries. We have those in the state, including in my county by referendum.

We have them in some areas by votes of city councils in local jurisdictions, counties.

Again, this is just a question about who wins in a head to head struggle between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions that may have been locally adopted like that to prevent growth either from a slope line or to go into agricultural conservation areas.

Through the chair.

Yes.

So this Bill does not override local zoning. And so if a city has established urban growth boundaries, this would not change that. The Bill would also, the exemptions in the Bill do not apply to prime farmland. And so I don't think that that will not be an issue.

All right. I want to thank the author. And again, I appreciate the leadership and the good work here and the willingness, as the pro tem indicated, to work on some of the additional provisions going forward. And with that, again, I urge an aye vote. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. You are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate this discussion. Was also very keen on listening to the discussion in the Budget Committee. And I do want to align my comments with our pro tem about this Bill.

But I also do recognize the concerns from outside stakeholders, particularly from the environmental justice community, much of whom I represent in Southeast Los Angeles, that had been referenced quite significantly in Budget Committee. I know all this. The exemptions that are here kind of leave folks feeling like what is left, right?

But whether it's wildfire risk, daycare centers, nonprofit food banks or pantries, farm worker housing, et cetera. But I will say too, that my community of Southeast Los Angeles has to deal with both. They have to deal with environmental impacts, which are really tough, but they also have to deal with the issues of housing.

The City of Maywood is probably the most dense city in all of the nation. Overcrowding is a real problem. And most of them are paying between 2,500 to $3,000 a month. And the incomes are 40,000 dollars a year. 40,000.

The ability to have more opportunity for housing is real here, but we have to do all things, and this is not where it ends.

As had been mentioned, there is going to be discussions, and I would love to be engaged in those discussions to talk about advanced manufacturing, to engage more deeply with our local governments and our tribal councils.

But this Bill also has, what is very exciting for Los Angeles, especially southeast Los Angeles, is $500 million in homelessness accountability through HAPP, which is very, very important.

And if you're a Member from Los Angeles, you know how real the issue is, too, is ensuring that folks, we have a vision zero to get folks off of the street. But we also ensure that our local governments are accountable to these, to this very real issue. And it's not just them pointing the finger at the state.

Well, now look, you have $500 million to do the work now. Go do it it. And we need accountability. Absolutely.

But back to the issue of the secret streamlining, which I know has been the real bulk of the issue is I do believe that we can get to a place in the next few weeks that will be amenable for all. And so I just want to put that out there that I am personally committed.

I ask us to think about all things at once, housing, environmental justice all the same and know that of course, many of us have been working on environmental justice. We don't want our folks to be living near polluting industries and we want to make sure that this Bill addresses that.

So with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen. You are recognized.

Members. Obviously there are a lot of good things in this Bill, a lot of reasons why it's been put forward. But you have heard a number of the concerns as to the impacts on a whole slew of issues relating to CEQA, and we had a big discussion about this in Budget.

Obviously, the Bill that this was based on was discussed extensively in Environmental Quality Committee as well. But I certainly have some deep concerns about particularly the impacts on endangered species, the tribal consultation issues that have been raised. I know we're going to be working on advanced manufacturing as well.

I just want to you know, there's a comment that was made in the Budget Committee hearing about how CEQA, if you the CEQA prevents infill and that it's a problem for infill housing, I would just say with specific concern to the Endangered Species Act protections. Endangered species protections, that's typically something that doesn't impact infill.

That's something that's usually happening way out in the wildland urban interface. And so there's no kind of sprawl nexus here when we're trying to make sure that the CEQA analysis incorporates the challenges and issues associated with endangered species.

And while we do have CESA and other, the federal Endangered Species Act, CEQA plays a really important role in helping to identify endangered species needs and concerns as they relate to projects that are that are being put forward.

So, you know, I was, you know, with the commitments that I've heard on the floor from the pro tem and the majority leader relating to doing work on this in the next few weeks.

I'm, you know, willing to support this effort, but I do want to make point about how important that commitment is to so many Members who quite frankly, are pretty appalled by a number of things that are in this Bill. We want to give you the opportunity to work on these three issues that you've outlined.

But it was pretty shocking to see them in the Bill. And I think we need to do a lot of work to make sure that we get them fixed and addressed over the next few weeks, as has been... as has been promised by our leadership. So it's without that understanding that I will support the Bill today.

But it's an important commitment that's been made by our leadership and I think we all will be holding each other accountable to ensure that we get these issues addressed.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I also stand in support of this Bill. I also share many of the concerns that my colleagues shared. But I think as we heard our protest so eloquently explained, that everyone has concerns on this floor, but yet everyone stretched to get this done.

We know housing is a real, real big crisis.

And so something that's very important to me in this Bill is that this Bill provides the 500 million for local government through the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program, which is one of the most important asks for my local communities as they're starting to build housing and meeting their goals in terms of providing housing for low income families.

This was one of their biggest concerns. And so I'm really proud that we were able to get that in this program.

We have the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust that is just, again, I think it serves as an example regionally as we've had even other states go to our area to ensure that they see how our housing trust is working. But housing is one of those critical issues that we're going to grapple with for a while.

And I think this also is important in that it provides 300 million for the California Dream for all, first time homebuyer program. I think all of us know our youth are really, they're struggling to even envision themselves in a home. They're barely struggling to get themselves an apartment away from mom and dad

And so providing these opportunities for our youth to be able to participate in home ownership is also critically important. We know the data, it's very real. Most families are one paycheck away from homelessness. And this Bill does provide quite a bit of opportunities for our families.

I also want to thank the Budget Committee for making sure that we included money for the encampment resolution Fund. Again, we all see it in our communities and it's something that I think every single person on this floor is, can gather around.

We want to see us do better as a state as it pertains to housing those that are encampments and making sure that they're treated with dignity and respect. But again, bottom line, I know that there's someone disappointed on this floor on one issue or the other, and that's all of us.

I don't think anyone wins, but I also don't think anyone loses in that there's so much funding for housing that can help us meet our housing goals. And again, we want to just continue to make sure that people are housed.

This is about providing roofs over people's heads, but also make sure that they're living in dignity, have stable homes, and that we put our values, our California values in this budget, which is making sure that we take care of families that are low income. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members, I rise today as the chair of the Environmental Quality Committee. And I want to say thank you first of all to the budget chair and to the pro tem for their words, as well as to the other Members who have stood up to speak today.

I think there's a recognition from both of them that the environment is the core of CEQA and that we need to do serious reform of CEQA. And because it has been hijacked for other purposes and misused. And there are many projects that have been delayed or have not gotten off the ground at all.

And I think the reality of the invisible projects, the ones we never heard about because they knew they would have to go through this process, are also important to recognize. So there is really important reform work that needs to be done and is being done with CEQA.

It's also important, though, to recognize that one of the core reasons that CEQA is so powerful is that if there is a project being built in certain areas that remain in the build, these are all still protected areas, like, for example, state parks, prime farmland, marine protected areas, ecologic reserves, wetlands, floodways, a long list of places. When there are projects, whether they're health centers or food banks or childcare or advanced manufacturing, whatever the land use is, that's in those natural areas, those projects would be required to mitigate.

Which means that under CEQA, that's the unique feature of CEQA, is that the projects have to mitigate. And what that means is that the project would need to preserve habitat in a different area.

And so when we are looking at the definition of natural and protected lands, and then we don't include habitat for endangered and protected species, that doesn't make any sense, because we have many state goals and commitments around our 30 by 30 goals, our efforts to avoid extinction, species extinction, and so the habitat where those species live is really important.

And if there is a project, however worthy, that is being put into an area that is a natural and protected land, they should have to mitigate and protect alternative land somewhere else. So I listened very closely to the language that was being used, and I very much appreciated that we're committed to working closely.

We're continuing to get it right. We're working with, we need to work on. I appreciate all that, and I'm very hopeful that that translates into an inclusion of natural and protected lands to have habitat for endangered species, because I do see that as an oversight, the fact that it wasn't in here.

And it's just really important if we're going to continue with all of our state's ecologic and environmental goals, that we include that definition. Thank you very much.

Senator Seyarto. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, today I rise and changing my vote basically from Committee. I do support a lot of what is in this Bill. We've been crying for CEQA reform for a long time.

But the problem I've had with it is that we are front loading all the housing with secret reform and making it streamlined so it goes in faster, while at the same time the rest of the world, the rest of what makes up a community, especially in areas like I represent, the Inland Empire, they're falling behind in everything else because everything else is still subjected to all those lawsuits, all of that abuse, despite the studies that have been done.

And I've seen it over and over, when people get into their housing, especially in my region, they need roads. They need roads to drive on. Because right now there's not jobs for them to drive close to, so they have to drive a long ways to go on.

So they need roads that will get them to their jobs, where the jobs are. Some of the things, I had a project a while back ago in Murietta, and it was a shopping center, small one. Developer went out of his way to do everything that the community said they wanted.

In comes the lawsuit based on CEQA. kills this project. There's a bunch of jobs, local jobs, for people in the neighborhood who would have worked at that place, and they can't. And that's going on over and over and over.

Last week, we had a contingent of Inland Empire people, representatives, mayors, council Members come up here and go to your offices. Some of them wound up meeting with your staffs, but they had one message and that message was, we need the rest of it too.

CEQA reform doesn't mean throwing CEQA out and not considering the environment and just trampling over the species and all of that.

What it means is addressing the things that are broken that we've identified over the last 30 years that have put us into this huge housing hole and has made it impossible for us to keep up with the job growth that needs to happen, with the roads that need to happen and all the other infrastructure like schools, shopping centers, things like that.

If we don't do that, we're going to have an imbalance. We're going to have a bunch of people who won't even may live in some apartments out there, but they won't have jobs. And if they do, they're going to have to drive a long ways to get them.

We need a long term commitment from the Legislature and the Governor to start investing in the accompanying infrastructure that is needed to support the kind of housing growth that they are forcing to happen. I don't have a problem with them forcing it to happen. I have a problem with them not keeping up with the infrastructure.

So this is just a sample of one little slice of the pie that needs to happen.

And I can assure all of the folks that we listen to today, we are not intending to trample over all of the environmental stuff, but we have to eliminate the parts that are making it impossible to do business in California, that are driving up our costs and are driving our kids right out of the state because the opportunities aren't here for them.

So I will support this now in a whole 180 from this afternoon. But I was aligning my vote earlier with my colleague from Fair Oaks because I do not like being coerced into voting for something. This should stand on its own because it has merit.

We don't have to have somebody hold us up and say, if you don't vote for this, the whole thing dies. That's ridiculous. So we'll support this.

I look forward to us rethinking the entire picture and hopefully, hopefully starting to recognize the importance of bringing along all the other infrastructure, especially in high growth areas that is needed to accommodate the growth that we want. Thank you.

Senator Valladares. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

I rise in support of SB131 and really because I've had several conversations in my district for decades, whether it's with constituents who are infuriated, upset, frustrated that there isn't enough housing supply in the district, or whether it's from developers like Five Points in my district who it took them over 20 years to go from inception to actually breaking ground and being able to sell homes.

26,000 units. Significant. Very significant. And just earlier today, another project in my district, Tojon Ranch, they have been going through the CEQA process and the Centennial project since 2001. I think some of you in this room were either in high school or in grade school when they started. And that's frankly unacceptable.

They're having to go through it for the fifth time, unacceptable. Over 100,000 units. Not the Kern county piece. So you said that's four houses, Right. This is the LA side. But LA County has approved, LA County has approved their project twice. Twice they've gotten support from LA County. Not the easiest county to get support from.

Yet still today they're going to have to go through the secret process for the fifth time. So I do have a question for the author.

Will the author take the question?

Sure.

You may proceed.

Thank you.

So can you clarify that the exemption is only for infill projects? And if so, why weren't projects like the Tone Ranch projects, and I know other projects around California that have been trying to build significant units of over the last two decades included in this Bill?

You may proceed.

Thank you. So the infill exemption was in the other Bill, SB or excuse me, AB130, which originated as AB609 by Assembly Member Wicks, and that the focus of that Bill was infill. In terms of this Bill, this Bill, the housing piece of it has to do with the process itself, like the administrative record and so forth.

And then there is an exemption for if you are rezoning to implement an approved housing element. So those are the housing pieces of the Bill. And also if you come close to getting an exemption but missed by one factor for a housing project, then the EIR is limited to the factor that you missed. So that...

That those are the housing aspects of the Bill which are significant and impactful. But on the other Bill, it was an infill about infill housing. So that was the choice that was. That was made. Yeah.

So again, I'm going to support this Bill, but I don't think that it actually goes far enough because this isn't the only project that is being stifled and we're over 3 million units short in California. Centennial would offer 100,000. So I urge your support on this. But we still have more work to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you're recognized.

Madam President. Thank you. Madam President. I wasn't going to speak because I feel like I said the comments that I needed to say in budget.

But I do want to tell you that even though there was a tremendous amount of opposition from the environmental justice groups and others, I'm going to give you three reasons why I think this bill is significantly important and it doesn't go far enough. But I appreciate the advancements that we are taking.

Number one, the Tejon Ranch project, which you've already done, it's split between Kern County and Los Angeles. Kern County did an EIR and approved the Tejon Ranch outlets, the Tejon Ranch rest area where you could go and stop on your way on 99. You could go shopping at the outlets.

Quinn Caterpillar, I think got a permit to build like within three days. It was truly a shovel ready project and it provided thousands upon thousands of jobs in my district in an area that was right off of I5, very convenient.

We got a lot of business that was brought there from different areas, not only in this state but also in Nevada and New Mexico because all we did.

The brilliant Bob Stein at Tone Ranch, as the President before stuck a camera, GoPro camera on the front of a truck that was going to supply goods and services throughout our state into the western region. And he drove down the road around the gas station and got on the freeway and took off.

And if you looked at other areas of the state or places in Nevada and New Mexico, they would take them an hour just to get to the freeway. Another story I want to tell you is about Bob Colston wanted to build 12 houses. 121400 square foot houses.

Now I realize in your guys area those are $1.0 million homes. There are only about 69 or 79,000 in my district, especially Taft, California. 12 houses to provide mostly people of color with an opportunity for the American dream. And it was tied up in litigation for six years over a squirrel.

Fish and Game, before it became Fish and Wildlife, had Mr. Colston trapped the squirrel, put a collar around its neck, had to bring an expert in from another state to be able to trap the squirrel. And then when it became Fish and Wildlife, they find Mr.

Colston for altering the squirrel's existence and still denied him the opportunity to relocate the squirrel to a different area of the state in order to build 12 houses on his own personal property. We have the spaceport in Mojave. We do extraordinary things.

We do Voyager Landing, we have the fastest, we broke the sound barrier, all this stuff with an inland port, an inland spaceport that we have, it's the only one in the entire world is this inland port and Mojave spaceport.

And every time there's a tortoise on the Runway to test one of these fabulous air pilot or these air aircraft, whether it's hydrogen planes delivering like 300 miles again, complying with climate change, they have to call an expert in from Florida to pick up a gotta be certified certified to pick up a tortoise and move it off the Runway.

That is ridiculous. It stops in innovation, it stops progress, it stops advancements in technology. And it's, it's crazy that you would allow that to happen. I don't think you should throw the baby out with the bath water.

You should make sure that CEQA is available and that it, it is used for what it's supposed to be used for, but it definitely should not be used as a mechanism to stifle construction, to tie people up in litigation for decades.

And when you talk about mitigation, some of the mitigation that I've read in contracts is just a pay to play. That's all it is. We'll give you this project, we'll stop filing lawsuits if you, and you give the Environmental Defense Fund or whoever $250,000. It's not supposed to be used like that.

And in several cases it is used like that. So I just, again, I support this bill because it does what I think is not enough, but it is moving definitely in the right direction to specifically address some housing crisis issues and some other issues with warehousing. Amazon's, you know, my district, I have land.

You guys don't have land. You need my land. You need my land. There's no, you know, take Santa Monica beach. Let's just put 6,000 acres of solar panels on Santa Monica beach and you create your own green energy. But I have it in the desert.

And we use transmission lines to provide them to Los Angeles County, which benefits a lot of my friends in Southern California. But the thing is, is that what I'm saying is that each county or each area or each district in the state is diverse. And it does it, it provides different things.

I'm fighting right now for the cement plants. I would love to see an exemption for the environmental rules under the Joshua Tree. Not the Joshua Tree National Forest, but everywhere you go in the high desert, if you ever take 58 to 4014 across to Vegas, there are these ugly little succulents that are everywhere.

And when you talk about 3, $500 per tree to mitigate for somebody who makes $47,000 a year and there's 20 of them between your house and the driveway and you have to hook up to city water. That's absurd.

When you look at 11.5 tons or 11 million tons of cement, 9.5 are in the district where this Joshua Tree or the succulent exist. LA is not going to have the cement.

The State of California is not going to have the cement they need to rebuild LA or build our freeways because you are shutting down 9.5 million tons of cement in this state. And that is the next catastrophic cliff that this state will face if you don't act and fix it.

Now, I realize we're taking bits and pieces and we're addressing the housing issue. Now. I'm not going to get into oil issue. I know you guys know we have issues with the refineries closing and we have to do something about that as well. And. But at least we're moving on the housing piece.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote for some common sense to give the lead agency the ability to mitigate, require a full declaration or a negative declaration to be able to move projects forward based on the local community and the local area.

Kern County is not going to permit stuff in LA and we're not going to LA permit stuff in our county. It's a local jurisdictional, a local lead agency Bill, and I think it was very well crafted. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I'm going to try to pretend like I didn't hear all of Senator from Bakersfield's comments just because I'm hoping we don't extinct, say, the tortoise or run over all of our wildlife in this state in an effort to build. I think there's a way to do both.

I think there are industrial areas in the state that do make sense. I think there are some significant issues, though, in this Bill and I appreciate the Senator from Encinitas and from Santa Monica and their concerns.

I just want to align myself with them and mostly appreciate the pro tem's remarks and the commitment to addressing some of these core issues around natural and protected lands. Going forward, I think nature and abundance can live side by side. In fact, they must. We don't want to live in a moonscape California.

We want to live in a livable one. So with that, I'll be supporting the measure today with those commitments and do appreciate the author's work.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members. You know, I have to be honest with you. I've gone back and forth on this Bill about four or five times a day listening to different debate. I wasn't sure. I'm still not sure completely.

But I want to kind of explain where I'm going and then maybe if the budget chair can answer maybe some of my questions here. It's not a question, but like, you'll see where I'm coming from. Look, I've spent probably about 1520 years talking about CEQA reform.

I do believe that Californians are the endangered species list because we're not putting enough homes over our roof for people who want to find a home and make it affordable for our Californians.

So I think secret reform is a must if we're going to build housing for the next generation, for people like my son to be able to afford a home after he graduates from college.

So I've been working on secret reform for 15 to 20 years and a lot of great things are in this in terms of moving the ball forward. Look, enemy of the perfect.

I believe that it's not perfect, but the one, the one avenue that I would like to point out as a former mayor of Huntington Beach, we made some headlines about pushing back on some of the housing that was demanded of our city when I was mayor.

I do think the RHNA process is very flawed because when you look at the number that that was RHNA gave Huntington Beach, by way of example, we would have to build 50 high rise, high density apartment buildings to meet that number.

And if you understand anything about Huntington Beach, it's a suburban coastal community and they like it that way. They don't want an urban center. There's nothing wrong with urban living. I almost moved to New York out of college. I love San Francisco, I love Los Angeles. But a lot of people like the suburban lifestyle.

And if you know anything about Huntington Beach, it was 95% built out and the other 5% is wetlands that nobody on this board but nobody on this floor would want to build.

So I'm kind of conflicted because I do want the secret form that's in this Bill, but I also want local government and local government to have some voice, especially in cities like Huntington Beach. When I was mayor that said, look, the state's trying to jam our city that we love as a suburban city into an urban center.

And I want the budget chair to maybe talk about that in his close. Some of those conflicted because again, I go back and forth on this thing because again, Members Some people love urban, some people love suburban. Some people like the rural lifestyle.

And I think too many times in this Legislature, we're trying because of environmental goals, and I respect those. At the same time, you're trying to urbanize a lot of suburban California that doesn't want that. And so with that, I do believe that secret reform is important.

And so again, I would love the budget lead to maybe talk a little bit about what the that is in terms of a city like mine in Huntington Beach that has this, I think, unbelievable arena mandate on its city.

And I know our city will continue to push and fight against that, because that is not right, what they're trying to do. The City of Huntington Beach.

Thank you. Would you like to address in your.

Clothes or I can do it now. Either way.

Senator Wiener, you are recognizable.

Yeah. What I will say is in terms of RHNA and zoning and the local control battles that we have on this floor and in the Legislature, that is one thing that is not what this bill is. This bill does not infringe on local control. In fact, it enhances local control.

And that's why for the original version of this bill, and actually they came and testified in favor today, the Rural County Representatives of California. RCRC was a co-sponsor of the bill and continues to support it.

The Association of Counties, the League of Cities, the big city mayors, they all supported SB 607, which was an even broader version of this, of this bill. So local governments want to be able to do things. This bill will. Does not in any way override their ability to make permitting decisions or zoning decisions. They retain that authority.

This will make it easier for cities to be able to do what they need to do to help their residents thrive.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise because I think there's. There's definitely power in numbers. And I wanted to add my name to list of my colleagues who have raised some really great points on the concerns here.

And mine really lies with the advanced manufacturing because even as a response to the author right now that talked about ensuring that it only applies if it's locally zoned in advanced manufacturing for industrial zoning. And in my district, that still poses a huge problem because in my district, zones that are zoned industrial are surrounded by homes.

And you've heard me introduce legislation here around aggregate recycling facilities, silicosis and so forth. Because in my area, it's not like the Senator from Bakersfield where if you put something which beneficial brings a lot of jobs, there are not a lot of homes within a 5 or 10 mile radius in my district.

My industrial zoned areas are within 300ft of parks and homes.

So I'm glad that the majority leader who has a similar district to a lot of us in the urban areas is going to be has made the commitment along with the pro tem on this because these are really big issues that have different impacts for different districts across California.

And while it might be beneficial in one area, it's not in the other district. And again, while huge environmental justice champion and those are really a lot of the core bills that I do here in this Legislature, I voted to do streamline if CEQA for housing because I know that's a crisis.

But when we include a lot of the other things, that's where the heartburn comes in. I don't just again don't understand why advanced manufacturing is in there and look forward to the ongoing conversations but commitment to the change, not just conversations, not just busy work. I'd love to see actual change in the very, very near future.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Padilla, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues, I rise in reluctant support and want to put some gratitude on the record to the leadership and certainly to my esteemed colleague from San Francisco for his diligence and hard work that is always to be respected, even if we question some of the elements of the outcome.

I have grave concerns, Madam President and colleagues, many of you who have worked with me for a long time know both with respect to this process, which I do not endorse or support, which I do not believe is as democratic or transparent or appropriate as it can be. I understand the issues are difficult.

I understand they are complex. I understand the legislative process can frustrate many people in our state, including Members, including governors, including the public. But we owe them a better process than this.

We owe them to be unafraid of scrutiny and argument and disagreement and transparency, and to conduct deliberations and debate and consideration of various components in the light of day in the normal order to undertake massive policy changes in a budget trailer bill that most Members of the Legislature have a matter of hours to review is undemocratic and it is inappropriate.

Beyond that, I do appreciate the commitments that have been made by our leadership here to address fundamental issues.

I echo some of my esteemed colleagues comments about underserved communities of color who often have misaligned land use designations in their zoning and General plans or industrial polluting land uses sit side by side with elementary schools, daycare centers and housing.

I'm grateful for the commitment that has been made to address some of the unintended consequences of the language in print, which for folks who represent a district like I do, will only present unintended consequences that are adverse to this environment, to our future and to our children and our grandchildren's health.

And so I am grateful for that commitment and I look forward to making progress on those issues. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam President. You know, I think when you look at the debate and discussion and Budget Committee today and on the floor today, just the sheer breadth and diversity of opinions ranging from it goes too far, two, it doesn't go far enough. Two, it's just right.

What do they say that about the three Bears or the three Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Sorry, it's been a long time. And also, but not just the range of opinions, but the strength of folks opinions in this body, on the Committee and also as Members of the public.

And the reason for that is that CEQA does have it touches so many parts of life in California, even people who have never heard of ceqa, it touches their life in good ways, in more challenging ways, in all sorts of different ways.

It is like a pillar law in California that intersects with so many activities and needs in this state. And so that's why the debate about it has been so intense. And that's a healthy thing. And I appreciate all the feedback that we've received both in its original version, SB 607 and now in the budget trailer bill Today.

I do want to say I personally don't feel coerced by the Governor because the bills in here all started out in the Legislature. Same with the other Bill before us. They were introduced, they were not introduced. The Governor didn't come forward and say I want SB 607, I want AB 609, I want this, I want that. We introduced those.

Assembly Members introduced those and ultimately the Governor said he wanted to put them all together and we did that and it required a three party agreement. And so, you know, we can talk about the budget trailer process. For as long as I've been here, there have been debates about it.

But these all originated from Members of the Legislature. You know, I appreciate the pro tems focus on affordability because that's fundamentally what this is about when we talk about the struggles of Californians.

Yes, it's housing and we see that all throughout the state that people who cannot afford housing, working class, middle class people, young people being Pushed out entirely because we have spent 50 years deprioritizing the construction of housing. This bill, along with AB130 will make it easier and faster to build new homes. But it's not just housing.

And that's why this bill goes beyond housing. This bill is also about child care. And this bill will exempt from CEQA childcare centers in commercial areas, in mixed use areas, in various areas that we need more childcare because that is a huge cost for working families.

And I want to and health centers and water systems, so many critical needs. And I want to just touch on advanced manufacturing and I appreciate all the feedback on that.

Colleagues, when the CHIPS act was passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the CHIPS act transformational to say we want to reassure manufacturing creating an industrial policy in this country. It was great. I hope they don't repeal it, but it's great.

That law, the CHIPS act with a few limited exemptions, skipped over California went to other states for that because it is too hard and too expensive to set up shop in California. And so I look forward to the work on that. We want to get it right.

And I take to heart the feedback that we've gotten today on that. And I appreciate that. And we will be working hard in the coming months on that and other issues. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes: 33; no: zero. Assembly amendment--noes: one, excuse me. Assembly amendments are concurred in. Members, we are going to move back for a moment for Privileges of the Floor. Senator Pro Tem McGuire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam President and members. I stand with our amazing Secretary of the Senate, Secretary Contreras, and I know all of us in the Senate, to bid a happy retirement to someone who has spent the better part of four decades, her adult life serving the people of California and the California Legislature.

Today, we get to honor the Rock of the Senate, Susan DeLaFuente. Susan's been working in this storied building for 37 years, serving with several members of the Legislature before joining the Secretary of the Senate's Office about two decades ago. Susan tackles a number of duties. We call her The Fixer.

She welcomes a stream of Senators and sergeants, advocates and staff with her trademark warmth and incredible can-do style. Unofficially, Ms. DeLaFuente does everything, no joke.

Whether she's digging through records in what we all call, affectionately, the dungeon or editing the Senate Daily Journal, solving problems behind the scenes before they become problems in front of all of us, Ms. DeLaFuente is an invaluable asset who is counted on by so many. Exactly.

And when the world turned upside down during the pandemic, there was one person that kept us moving forward, and that's Susan DeLaFuente. She was one of the few people physically here in the Capitol every single dang day. And she wasn't just helping the Senate function; she was helping keep all of us safe, the amazing staff safe.

No task was too big, no detail was too small. She was our information hub who kept us all linked together despite having to work apart, and I gotta say, Ms. DeLaFuente's family ties run deep in the Legislature.

In 1869, her great grandfather's furniture company helped build the 120 desks that the Senate and Assembly sit in every day still to this day. The furniture maker's son, her great grandpa, served six years as Senator, representing the great County of Solano. Heck, yes. That was a heck to the yeah from the Senator from Solano.

You know, she's gone on to establish her legacy with her curse of the capable. That helped us navigate some of the most stressful times, and as we all know, we have a lot of those in this job. I want to take a moment to say thank you.

Thank you to Susan for your work ethic, your professionalism, your compassion, your mark on this institution. Candidly, she has made all of us stronger, which in turn has made this state stronger. As you head into retirement, spending more time with her hubby--let's give a round of applause for Carlos, who is here today. Her amazing sons.

Give them a round of applause; Luis, Joey, and Dominic, everybody. Her daughter-in-law, Tiffany, is with us tonight, and Brandon, who is her grandson, is on a second win, so watch out. Let's give Brandon a round of applause. Her love in life is her family. She's so proud of them. She loves her grandson, spoils him rotten, and we know that there's a lot of overdue home improvement projects that she's going to be working on, but I got to say this: it's a huge loss. It's a huge loss for all of us in this institution.

There are very few people who have had such a mark on the State Senate, who has brought positive change to all of us, other than Susan DeLaFuente. Ladies and gentlemen, I want everybody up on their feet, and let's give it up loud and proud for the one, the only, Susan DeLaFuente and her amazing DeLaFuente Family. Let me hear you. And the last thing I'll just say, Susan's sisters are here today as well. Can we please give them a round of applause and say hi and thank you so much?

We're going to invite all Senators to please join with a picture of all Senators along with Secretary Contreras. Then what we'd like to be able to do is, like, we'd like to take a picture with the amazing Senate staff team with Susan DeLaFuente as well. So if we can have all the Senators please join to give her the resolution.

Senators, we will reconvene in one minute.

Senators, we are going to move back. Senators, we are now going to move back to finish our Supplemental Senate File. We will now move to File Number 97: SB 139.