Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Please note that AB 1940, Calderon, is imposed from today's hearing. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time. The rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each.

Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should only state their names, organization, and their position on the bill. We're going in file item order. I see a semicolosa here, and my understanding is we'd like to begin with, item three AB 1725. Whenever you're ready.

We'll be starting as a subcommittee, obviously.

Alright. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, chair members, for the opportunity to present a v seventeen twenty five today, and thank you to the committee consultants, staff, and our sponsor for their hard work and partnership on this important measure. All good. I would also like to accept the committee's proposed amendments seeking to ensure the bill captures all wells that pose a risk to human health and safety and linking well disclosures with publicly available government data.

For too long, families across California have lived with serious environmental hazards right under their noses. Communities, especially low income communities and communities of color, are disproportionately impacted by oil wells, which pose significant health and safety risks. Our residents have a fundamental right to know what exists in their own neighborhoods. They have a right to know what is directly affecting their families, kids, and homes. California's continued development in housing and infrastructure must go hand in hand with transparency, accountability, and environmental responsibility.

And yet there are no consistent statewide requirements that disclose the presence of oil wells on or near their schools, hospitals, parks, and local communities. Furthermore, there's not an existing law that ensures methane monitoring systems are functioning properly. This lack of information is an injustice to Californians, leaving families and communities vulnerable. We know that 66% of active and idle well wells leak methane, a highly flammable gas that can cause respiratory illness, explosions, and with prolonged exposure, death.

Uncapped oil wells also release harmful chemicals linked to cancer and chronic disease.

We have seen this in communities like in my own district, like in Vista Hermosa, where residents have reported methane monitoring systems that are disabled or inoperable with no clear response or resolution. No family should have to live with the fear of this uncertainty and risk. AB 1725 addresses these gaps by establishing clear and consistent standards for disclosure and methane monitoring so that we can better protect our neighbors, families, and communities.

With that said, I would like to read a statement from Rosalinda Morales, who's a resident, in my district in Vista Hermosa Heights, who couldn't join us today. And, unfortunately, our, sponsor, the Sunrise Movement, many of them work for, UTLA and the Teachers Union, and as we know, they were in the middle of, contract negotiations today and weren't able to make the trip up here.

Her statement reads, chair Culra and members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, My name is Rosalinda Morales, and I'm a resident of the Vista Hermosa Heights, in Los Angeles. We live at the heart of the historic LA City oil field consisting of over 1,300 wells. In the early twentieth century, this oil field produced over a quarter of the world's oil.

My family has called this community home for generations, and unfortunately, we're all too familiar with the legacy of the LA City oil field and the impacts of living near oil wells. Growing up, I remember playing with my mother in our yard, and she tended to her flower garden.

The oil was so rich that you could dig nuggets of liquid black oil in the soil. My mother loved to garden without her gloves, to feel the earth without the knowledge that it was poisoning her. Living near an oil well or on an oil field caused great harm to personal and public health.

Exposure to toxic chemicals found in oil wells such as benzene and methane is directly linked to an increase in dizziness, headaches, respiratory system irritation, skin skin conditions, respiratory diseases, chronic illness, cardiac events, strokes, preterm births, and cancer. My mother, unfortunately, passed too early from cancer, of which we have no family history of.

I firmly believe that it's my mother's repeated exposure to toxins from wells that led to her illness. My family is not alone. All residents living on O'Neill Oil Wells have experienced them. Today, there are more than 5,000 active idle and orphan wells in the city of Los Angeles. They are next to schools, community centers, and homes, and nearly 75% of active wells in the city are located near sensitive land use facilities.

The fact is that 3,300,000 residents of Los Angeles County live near an uncapped oil well, and over 500,500 residents live within 1,300 feet of a well. In my community, oil spills have dislocated residents and covered our streets in a toxic substance. Chronic illness and respiratory conditions are common in the community. Most recently, a family with young children had to be temporarily relocated as there was an active well in their own backyard where kids would usually play.

Most people that live near oil wells often have no knowledge of their existence and the present risk.

That knowledge and notification will empower residents to take necessary steps to protect their health. That is why AB 1725 by Assemblymember Khlosa is so important. All new residents living near oil wells will be notified of their existence and will be able to take the needed steps to keep themselves healthy and safe. In a similar vein, methane buildup and exposure is a serious concern of buildings located on or near oil wells.

Oftentimes, the ringing of the methane alarm is the only notification of the presence of a dangerous well.

In order to ensure the safety of all residents, a fully operational methane alarm system is essential in an oil zone. We all have the right to be healthy in our communities. AB 1725 is a key step forward in ensuring that residents of these communities have the information and protections needed to ensure public well-being. And so with that, chair, that concludes the statement from my constituent Rosalinda Morales who couldn't join us today, and that concludes my testimony.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room that's in support of AB 1725? Is there anyone opposed to AB 1725?

Good early morning to you, chair and member. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First, I wanna thank the author for agreeing to work with us on a resolution that we can at least better place the blame on and focus on the industry that's responsible. We agree with you, that residents living near Wells should be kept safe and healthy. I think our concern is that we're focusing on the wrong industry.

What we're asking for is that the, asking for is that the wells be capped correctly, that there be inspections of those wells by the state, especially if they're orphaned, and that we have and ensure that the alarms are working correctly and that there is some sort of response when an alarm goes off at the property where the well is located. So we're gonna continue to work with the author and see if we can find some resolution to our concerns for AB 1725.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1725?

Hi. Good morning, mister chair and members. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. As in print, we like my colleague, we agree with the sentiment of the bill, but we'd like to see from a real estate transaction perspective this disclosure folded into the natural hazards disclosure that's provided in a residential transaction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair. Member, Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Is it oh, yeah. No problem.

Nicole Quiniones is on behalf of the California Chamber. Yeah. Also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other any questions or comments from colleagues? I wanna thank the Assembly for bringing this forward and and taking the amendments that they make it more practical and more feasible for residents to comply. And ultimately, I would just you know, look, if your grandkids or children were living that close, wouldn't you want them to know, wouldn't you want them to have an alert that if the methane level is right risen, they can take off for a day or two.

There are things more important than property values.

It's not that that this is something I think that everyone would want to know if they were buying a home and if they were living in a home or in a neighborhood. And I think the amendments make it far more feasible for the owner to be able to comply. Would you like to close?

Thank you, chair and committee members. You know, I think I equate the the work of this bill to really address some of the immediate risks that residents and families are facing now. And, you know, just like we wouldn't, ask people to live in a home without a fire alarm or other safety devices to monitor their immediate safety and well-being, we should have similar standards for methane. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yeah. But when we get quorum, we'll have the opportunity to do that. Now the one last thing I'll say is if the the chamber and others are still concerned about the industry causing it, maybe they can work with us to cap some of those wells. Onto item one, AB 1650.

While we make our witnesses, wait for our witnesses to come up here, I will be working with the opposition on the prior bill as well to make sure that we continue to make specific to my district as well.

Thank you.

Whenever you're ready.

Well, we can just get started in the interest of time. Thank you.

He's coming.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 1650 today. Thank you to the committee consultant staff and our principal coauthor, Assembly Member Ortega, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. I would also like to accept the committee amendments seeking to clarify that liability for violating this bill falls onto the law enforcement agency and not the rental car provider. AB 1650 is about safety, transparency, and accountability.

Since the 2025, we know that there's been increased in immigration activities by ICE, and they have intensified across our state, especially in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco.

All of these operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We have seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our community. When vehicles are used by government agencies that lack proper identification or safety equipment, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors.

Additionally, inviting potential abuses of power, abuses of power in government, given the absence of transparency or accountability in how these vehicles are being used. These practices create not only just confusion, but fear.

Fear for the public and fear for those who are being illegally faced with excessive force from our Federal Government without due process. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue. Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification. AB 1650 delivers a necessary and urgent step to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them.

This bill ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a government agency for the purpose for for the purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable and equipped with appropriate, lighting for safety purposes.

It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability. With that, I'm proud to be joined by Maegan Ortiz, from IDEPSCA and Christopher Sanchez representing the Central American Resource Center, also known as CARECEN, who will testify about the importance of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Maegan Ortiz, and I'm the Executive Director of the Instituto De Lucacion Popular Del Sur de California IDEPSCA. We're one of the largest worker center organizations in the state. We operate five day labor centers in the Los Angeles region and work with thousands of day laborers and household workers. Since last year, what we have seen and experienced is that the Federal Immigration Enforcement actions have really created an atmosphere of confusion and fear.

In August, specifically, while I was at one of our locations in the San Fernando Valley, I watched as at least a dozen unmarked vehicles surrounded the day labor center that I was at. These vehicles, a combination of renter sprinter vans and commonly used sedans, were all unmarked, and they were all filled with men in masks who did not identify themselves as they surrounded the day labor center and myself pointing automatic weapons at me, a US citizen.

Was this, in the moment I wondered, is this a robbery? Is this a terrorist attack? It was very unclear from the vehicles themselves.

And this was just one of 15 immigration enforcement actions that my organization at our locations had experienced last year. And all of these incidents involved the use of rented, unmarked vehicles. Just a few weeks ago in Hollywood, Giovani, a father, was on his way to work and was snatched off the street before the sun rose. In the dark, an unmarked vehicle could have been any agency, any kind of kidnapping, including a state sponsored one.

It took half a day of my staff searching through different court databases to find out what agency had taken him just so we could tell his children that they were not gonna be able to get picked up by their dad that day.

On two occasions last year, two of my staff members, US citizens, were shoved into unmarked rental vehicles. One was detained for three days without access to a lawyer, and another was interrogated in a rental car while driven around the Cypress Park neighborhood. AB 1650 is about basic transparency transparency at a time where we're seeing that being shut down. AB 1650 is actually about protecting businesses from liability by knowing very clearly what their vehicles are being used for.

And AB 1650 is about making sure the community and those that advocate with them have accurate information. I urge the committee.

Thank you.

For an aye vote. Thank you.

Buenos Dias. Good morning, mister chairman members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARECEN, the largest Central American immigrant rights organization in the country here in strong support of AB 1650. On June 6 of last year ICE began its aggressive attacks on Californians. CARECEN's day labor center, a center that safely connects workers to employment opportunities, was targeted and rated by unmasking individuals and unmarked cars.

On that day, ICE had detained day laborers who woke up that morning seeking to secure work for the day. They violently ransacked our center because there was no way for our, and there was no way for our staff or community members to hold them accountable for any of the harm that they have done.

Unfortunately, this wasn't an isolated incident. ICE has entered into our center several times, becoming more aggressive time after time that they've showed up, discharging pepper spray and other materials into our facility. Once again, without any identification, press hold them accountable, or any placards on their cars.

But CARECEN isn't alone in these experiences. Car wash workers, street vendors, construction workers, mechanics, and other workers have been subject to these aggressive and violent attacks by ICE who have shown up in unmarked cars causing havoc in our communities.

These rental cars have enabled ICE to terrorize communities by harming women and children and have no repercussions for their actions, for folks to get in hit and run car accidents with ICE officers and for the driver who has at no fault of their own to foot the bill because they cannot obtain the information of the ICE officer. Or having ICE officers jump out of moving vehicles to manhandle landscapers or car wash workers who are simply doing their job.

AB 1650 is an important step forward that ensures community members can easily identify law enforcement agencies who are renting cars and allowing communities to move forward to hold these agencies accountable. If for these reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1650?

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1650?

I'll be real quick. So if you don't mind, I'll just do it here.

Yeah.

Rob, Mutchrie, CalChamber. I just wanna thank the author for the engagement and the analysis for flagging our concerns. Look forward to going neutral once that's in. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 1650?

Apologies. We're out in the room late. Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Zbur?

So first of all, I wanna thank the author and

Hold on one sec. I apologize, Assembly Member. Is there another comment?

Sorry. Indigenous Justice, we support.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry.

I wanna, I wanna thank Assembly Member Caloza and Assembly Member Ortega for, for working on this bill. I think the, situation you described happened in my district. I mean, there's not a week that passes where especially in a district like mine where we have so many folks that are day laborers that are working in more affluent communities, there is not a week that passes where I'm not hearing reports of people getting snatched up off the streets. They're often in unmarked vehicles, and this is a real problem.

I, you know, it's it's it's unfortunate that we have to put businesses in a position where we have to do things like this, but it's not you know, I think this is really a a very measured approach.

I think it's really needed and would love to be added as a co author and would be supporting the bill and would love to move it at the appropriate time when I can. Thanks.

The good news is it looks like you're already a principal co author

Oh, am I? Yeah.

It's I, trust, trust me. Yeah. Co author. But I, either way, trust me, folks. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

There's so many great bills being introduced.

Whatever kind of co author there is, I'm, I'm honored to be on

Yeah. Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I apologize. I just swooped in here. Questions may have been asked, but the bill talks to all law enforcement. And I think maybe this may have been discussed related to ICE or what have you.

But what about regular law enforcement, police, local police, state police, federal police, or federal law enforcement on other matters do go undercover. What happens to those cars? How do you deal with that? Are you prohibiting undercover in non ICE related law enforcement?

Thanks for your question, Assembly Member Dixon. Those would be exempted from this.

They would be what?

They would be exempted.

They are?

This would not apply to them.

Is that in the bill?

Yes. That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's so necessary, and it's really sad we live in a time when a bill like this is necessary. And I look forward to one day when we're not having to pass bills like this. So thank you so much.

Any other questions or comments? I also wanna thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward. There's actually three of us up here that are principal coauthors already and that speaks to the the need of this. And I'll and, and I would given what Assembly Member Zbur was talking about, if there, if you sense that there's enough support, I, I would consider going towards urgency on it because I don't know if we can wait till January.

And so that would be under your consideration as you kind of get a sense from the rest of the body. But I think that's how important this is, and thank you for bringing the bill forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair and members, for your consideration of AB 1650. Thank you to our partners and our community advocates who are on the ground doing the hard work to protect our communities. You know, I think as you mentioned, we need to do more to ensure that we have state guards in California to protect all of our immigrant communities and really, you know, also our businesses, right, who this protects.

And so as well as our law enforcement to be able to identify who is law enforcement and who is not. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll take that up when we get a quorum. Thank you so much, and thank you to the witnesses. You are already a principal co author.

See? We got so excited when she first introduced it, we forgot. I still remember Aguiar-Curry.

Alright. Up next, we have file item six AB 1857. Our majority leader, Agriar Curry, we'll continue to operate as a subcommittee.

Thank you. Good morning. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, mister chair and members.

I would like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. And I would like to thank the concerned stakeholders, including the Land Title Association, Grocers, Retailers, and Business Properties Association for working with us on this bill to make progress toward a compromise on the bill. Recent amendments to the bill provide a local government process to strike a restrictive covenant instead of revoking all existing restrictive covenants. In 2023, California declared access to food as a human right.

But for many people, that right isn't a reality.

So today, more than one in five Californians experiencing hunger. Nearly 3,000,000 low income Californians live in food deserts and do not have reliable access to affordable, healthy food. The vol vulnerability to food deserts can be made worse by practices used by individual players in the grocery industry. When a grocery store closes or relocates, they sometimes leave behind restrictive covenants that can keep a new grocery store from moving in.

These restrictive covenants are clauses and leases or property agreements that limit what businesses can operate on a site.

In some cases, restrictive covenants prohibit future grocery store use for anywhere from fifteen to, in some cases, fifty years. This leaves entire communities without a nearby nearby option for fresh healthy food. As a result, residents are forced to rely on smaller stores with fewer healthy choices and often higher prices. This can lead to serious health consequences. Limited access to nutritious food is linked to higher rates of abyss obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.

Access to healthy food is essential for public health, but these practices continue to lock many communities out, especially in small cities and rural areas and communities of color. You know, not everyone can drive miles to another store, and moving a grocery store across town is not always a real solution. We need to stop these practices from happening and restore access to grocery stores in underserved communities. This bills this bill gives communities the tools they need to restore access to grocery stores.

This is a practical step to restore access to healthy food and support communities that have been left behind.

With me today, I have Cameron Mims Jones on behalf of Nourish California and Beth Smoker on behalf of California Food and Farm Network. We also have Lee Hepner with the American Economics Liberties Project available for technical questions.

Thank you.

Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Kameron Mims Jones. I'm a proud Southern California native, the daughter of Fremont Pathfinders, where we find a way or make one. And I'm here on behalf of Nourish California, a statewide anti hunger policy organization with over thirty years of experience advancing equitable access to food across California in strong support of AB 1857.

I come to this work grounded in a deep listening to communities across Los Angeles and our state and in commitment to help share the stories of black Californians and all communities impacted by communities that shape where food is and is not allowed to exist.

When a community loses its grocery store, it doesn't just lose a place to shop. It loses access to stability and health. Food insecurity is linked to long term diseases like diabetes, heart disease, poor child development, and unsure lives. Those are not abstract outcomes. They are predictable results of policy decisions about where resources go and ongoing lasting legacy of uncorrected racial discrimination.

In black communities across California, a supermarket loss has followed decades of redlining, segregation, and disinvestment. In Los Angeles, many grocery stores closed after the nineteen ninety two uprising and never returned. For many residents, the disappearance of culturally relevant grocery stores has felt like a punishment for demanding justice. Families are often forced to travel far outside of their neighborhoods just to buy basic food.

With gas prices continuing to climb, why would we be okay with community members having to spend the highest percentage of their income traveling for human basic needs?

Restrictive covenants exacerbate these issues. When stories stores leave, they leave leave these legal barriers that prevent another grocery floor from coming in store for location for decades. Communities could not see these restrictions, and they could not challenge them, but they lived with the consequences. AB 1857 is an important step towards acknowledging how policy decisions have contributed to unequal food access. We respectfully urge your aye vote aye vote for AB 1857. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair Kalra and members. My name is Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. As a cross sector network of 50 organizations working upstream to address food insecurity by removing exploitive market practices and putting community well-being first, We are a proud cosponsor of AB 1857. Food prices have risen nearly 30 since 2020. A grocery cart of basics, bread, chicken, vegetables that cost $34 in 2019 costs $50 today.

We keep hearing prices went up because of supply chains, the pandemic, tariffs, but the Economic Policy Institute found that over half of recent pricing increases were driven by corporate grocery profit margins. As grocery chains consolidate, they've used their market dominance to raise prices beyond inflation. Meanwhile, Albertsons profits grew nearly tenfold, and Kroger surged from 5.1 to 6,800,000,000.0 in five years. Restrictive covenants are one tactic grocery stores use to eliminate eliminate competition and lock in those high prices, and AB 1857 removes this tactic In food deserts, this food affordability crisis compounds.

Residents are forced to rely on convenience stores where food can cost 50 to a 100% more with fewer healthy options. In Vallejo, a Safeway closure with a restrictive covenant left a neighborhood without a grocery store for fifteen years. A community member shared that an entire childhood was spent without one nearby, costing families their money and time, two fundamental barriers to healthy living. AV eighteen fifty seven would prevent this from happening to another community ever again by prohibiting the use of grocery restrictive covenants in the state.

A small but bold step in addressing public health when even a and a single experience of childhood hunger can have lifelong impacts.

And food insecurity specifically drives over seven billion in annual health care costs in California, the highest of any state in the nation. In closing, restrictive covenants are a private mechanism that lets corporations undercut the state's own declaration that food is a human right while serving no community interest. AB 1857 begins to rectify this. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1857?

Good morning, mister chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of Full Well, a, nonprofit advocating for sustainable food policy. Thank you and support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Dani Kando Kaiser on behalf of Cameo Network, a proud supporter.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Kathy Mossburg on behalf of the Public Health Institute and their project Roots of Change in support as well as End Child Poverty California.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Matthew Moss on behalf of the LA Food Policy Council, the San Diego Food System Alliance, and Farm to People in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Loyal Terry, proud cosponsor of the bill on behalf of Economic Security California Action and in support or as well in support of GLIDE and Institute for Local Self Reliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kate Eager on behalf of NextGen in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1857?

Good morning, mister chair, members of the committee. Louis Brown on behalf of the California Grocers Association, we issued a letter of concern. I wanna thank the author, and her staff for meeting with us. We appreciate the amendments that have been moved into the bill and hope to remove our opposition soon. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone? Okay. Yeah. No problem.

Hello. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association or associated comments with the grocery as well. Thank you the author for working with and the, California Business Properties Association. I also wanna echo those concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly member Zbur.

Good morning. I think this is a really needed bill. I did have one question. So would the would the bill prevent a situation of having two supermarkets in sort of the same the same sort of strip mall? The one thing you know, obviously, if you have no supermarkets, these restrictive covenants to prevent a market from coming into a neighborhood is a really bad thing.

And, obviously, I'll be supporting the build because I know that that's the intent of that. The one situation that I had some some amount of slight concern out, it's a pretty common business practice when you actually have shopping center establishments to make sure that you actually only have sort of one of different kinds of establishments in order to make sure that the supermarket or the whatever survives and you don't have competition within that. Competition within that. Is that is that something that this bill would would prevent?

Thank you for the question, members. I do believe there's a provision in there that restricts colocation of grocery stores or allows for the restrictions on colocation of grocery stores within a single strip mall. But, generally, I think our perspective my perspective as an antitrust attorney is you would let the market solve that. There are multiple instances where grocery stores might serve different sectors of the market, a high end specialty store and a general needs store.

And and colocation of those types of facilities is not something that a bill like this or restrictive covenant should prevent.

Okay.

You just like to answer?

No. Lee's right. So there is an exemption in the bill that allows for there to be a restriction of only one grocery store in a shopping center as long as that grocery store has its doors open. We know of many cases that they call dark stores where stores will actually still pay rent, but will keep the store, you know, technically keep the lease live so that it can keep out competition.

Great. Well, that that satisfies my concern. And the reason why, you know, it's there, it's it's is that sometimes you need that in order to have make the the store and the shopping center viable. And so, you know, there are some good reasons sometimes to have a covenant like that, but also, you know, having a a Safeway and a Trader Joe's isn't a bad thing because they serve sort of different markets. So in fact, you would want that.

But sounds like this is addressed to the bill, so I'll be supporting it today.

And before before we continue, I'm gonna ask if our secretary can get quorum established.

[Roll Call]

Here. Alright. Quorum's established. We have a motion. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? I'd also like to to thank the author, and and and the opposition. The work there's not a lot of work on this. I think that this this has been a very detail oriented bill.

The concept is very high level, but when you get into the weeds, especially with the covenants and, you know, have to go back to real estate law and classes I didn't enjoy very much in law school. But, you know, one of the things I do like about it, especially coming from local government, it goes back to the local jurisdiction, local government.

They're in the best position to decide in a particular neighborhood, street corner, you know, working with the neighborhood business associations, the local neighbor neighbors, and neighborhood associations as to what's the needs are. And I think having these, covenants make that decision for those local jurisdictions is a problem. And I think this is opening up the opportunity for neighborhoods and communities to take back ownership of what they want to see in their community.

And and and so I really like it. I like the direction the bill has gone in out of respect for some of them, legitimate concerns or opposition. I would like to be added as a coauthor.

Right.

And would you like to close?

I sure would. No community should lose a grocery store and then be prevented from getting another one for decades, and we've seen that. This bill gives communities a fair chance to bring grocery stores back, improve access to healthy food, and support public health. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you accept the amendments?

Absolutely. I accept those amendments. Thank you. And I'll probably accept more later on.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We'll place that bill on call.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Addis. And this is Bill AB 1876.

May I make a motion for the consent calendar?

Oh, yes. Motion on consent and the second. Go ahead and take roll call.

[Roll Call]

Assemblymember Addis, whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and happy immigrant days of action today. I want to say thank you to you and staff and advocates. I'm here to present AB 1876, the Fair Care for All Act, that would codify federal nondiscrimination protections to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class. And I'll note that this is a priority bill of the LGBT Caucus and sponsored by Equality California, and I'm very honored to carry this bill today.

Since taking office last year, President Trump has continuously used inflammatory and blatantly false rhetoric to scapegoat transgender individuals as an attempt to justify the rollback of broader civil rights protections in health care.

And this includes directing the Department of Health and Human Services to review the legality of nondiscrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act. And I wanna underscore what a dangerous precedent this is. By framing these protections as controversial in the context of gender-affirming care, this administration is opening the door to weakening safeguards against discrimination for all communities, including discrimination based on race, national origin, color, age, disability, or sex.

And so, you'll hear from witnesses today, both speaking up for the LGBT community, but also speaking up for people with disabilities. AB 1876 will take proactive steps to codify nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act into state law.

So, the bill does not require providers to expand services or coverage; it just ensures that if an insurance provider covers a prescribed service for one patient population, that they would also cover the same service for all patient populations who need that care. So, joining me to testify today are Evan Fern, Public Policy Advocate with Disability Rights California, and Craig Pulsipher from Equality California.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor of this bill, and appreciate Assemblymember Addis's leadership on this. AB 1876 is a straightforward measure. It ensures that all Californians can continue to access health care health care free from discrimination by codifying Section 1557 nondiscrimination standards into state law.

While California has some of the strongest protections in the nation, this bill this builds on that foundation by clarifying and strengthening those protections at a time when federal protections are being rolled back.

The bill makes clear that health plans and insurers cannot deny coverage or benefits based on race, national origin, disability, or sex, or use discriminatory benefit designs or limitations, and it clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sex includes gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, sex characteristics, and sex stereotypes. At a time when access to health care and nondiscrimination protections are under threat at the federal level, AB 1876 provides additional clarity and continuity here in California.

It also importantly strengthens protections for LGBTQ people, people of color, those with disabilities, and people with limited English proficiency, who continue to face systemic barriers to care. AB 1876 simply reinforces and strengthens protections California already provides, ensuring that they remain clear, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair, Kalra, and members. I'm Evan Fern, Public Policy Advocate with Disability Rights California, in support of AB 1876. This bill protects people with disabilities and other protected classes from being denied health care coverage on the basis of their protected class. Medical care for many disabilities can be prohibitively expensive. Insurance coverage for this care allows more people with disabilities to afford the care they need to live comfortably.

And in many cases, they rely on this coverage to survive. Thankfully, California already has many strong protections for people with disabilities that go above and beyond federal law. However, in the face of historic cuts to health care services and potential new rule backs affecting access to health care, California has the opportunity to strengthen and build on these protections. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act includes protections against discrimination in health care coverage.

These are especially important for people with disabilities and those with serious or chronic conditions who rely on regular medical care.

Many people with disabilities also have identities that intersect with other protected groups like people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, and people with limited English proficiency. Codifying Section 1557 in the California state law ensures that these existing protections remain in effect here, even if they are repealed by the Federal Government. People with disabilities deserve equal access to health care that covers the medical appointments, prescription medications, and essential medical equipment needed to manage their disabilities and maintain their quality of life.

AB 1876 provides an added layer of legal protection against discrimination on top of strong California law. For people with disabilities and other marginalized communities trying to access health care coverage, maintaining this protection is vital.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1876.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1876?

Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Katie Bandize with Health Access California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, in support.

Thank you.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to 1876?

Good morning. My name is Jamie Reed. I hold a master's of science in clinical research management, and I run a national lesbian and gay organization advocating for evidence-based medicine. I am a lesbian. I worked in a pediatric gender center for nearly five years.

What this Bill does technically is not what it claims to do rhetorically, which is why my LGB organization is in opposition. Through a series of laws, regulations, and agency guidelines from SB 855 in 2020 through the Insurance Commissioner's 2025 rules and the attorney general's own guidance, California has progressively embedded an organization called WPATH as the operative standard for what insurers must cover for gender interventions, culminating in a mandate to cover all services identified in WPATH standards of care.

Whatever WPATH publishes is now going to become automatically California's coverage standard. The question today is whether you will lock that into statute. Right now, this structure exists as their regulatory level.

A future insurance commissioner could revise it. There is a mechanism, imperfect but real, by which California could respond if the evidence changes. AB 1876 is removing that mechanism by moving the mandate into a health and service code and insurance code where it would require a legislative vote to undo. WPATH does not build its standards through systematic evidentiary review.

They are built on a process called the Delphi process, which is a polling method in which a selected group of insiders vote on whether they agree with the statement.

75% agreement becomes a clinical recommendation. That is not evidence based medicine. That is a popularity contest. In part, we are opposed to this because the guidelines that WPATH holds up harms gender nonconforming LGB individuals. This is the organization you are being asked to enshrine into statute.

Here's what that looks like in practice. There is an emerging procedure in gender, which means injecting testosterone directly into the vocal cords of trans-identified women to deepen their voices. Under AB 1876, WPATH insiders would make that a covered benefit in California with no action required by this body.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I didn't see the microphone there, but I can hear it.

Can you hear me?

Yeah. I can hear you.

Good morning. Charlotte Johnson, our duty. My son irreversibly damaged his body when doctors convinced him he could become a woman. I watched his destruction in real time. This bill will force the doctors who did this to repeat that harm.

The analysis states that it is a modest change to existing law. I have tracked bills and heard that deceptive claim before. In '98, gender identity entered the criminal code. Modest change, they said. In '99, gender sneaks into the education code.

Just clarifying, they said. And then we lost female-only school bathrooms. In 2005, female-only public accommodations were eliminated. By 2013, girls no longer have female-only sports. Nothing to see here, just aligning statutes.

By '21, self ID reaches prisons, women's prisons, fully intact male rapists are housed in locked cells with women. Every time, just codifying existing protections. Every time, opponents were dismissed as confused or hysterical. Every time the bill passed, the law expanded far beyond what was promised. If this bill changes almost nothing, why are so many pro-trans organizations supporting it?

Your own analysis warns that this bill could provoke federal retaliation and produce court rulings that end up working against the intent to keep funding the butchering of humans. The analysis is correct, and we are helping to ensure that happens. Women and kids should not have to absorb the collateral damage of bad bills while taxpayers put the bills for expensive court battles.

Taxpayers are now paying 4.5 million dollars for Attorney General Bonta's disgusting desire to keep parents in the dark about their children's gender struggles.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else here in opposition to AB 1876?

Beverly Talbott from San Francisco. On behalf of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Courage Coalition, and Women Are Real, in strong opposition.

Meg Madden, on behalf of CAUSE, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, and of Women Are Real, in opposition.

Jenny Poyer Ackerman, Contra Costa County. I'm on the board of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, which strongly opposes.

Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Zbur.

First of all, I wanna thank you for bringing this and thank Equality California and Disability Rights and Planned Parenthood for sponsoring the bill. I think it's really important. I'd love to be added as a coauthor. You know, the health care of LGBTQ the LGBTQ community is under attack right now. That is one of the key things that this federal administration is doing, targeting our community and targeting in such a cruel way to, to eliminate the health care coverage that we all need.

So, I just wanna thank you for your allyship and for bringing this bill and would be, would love to be a coauthor.

Absolutely. Thank you.

And is that a motion?

Second.

And a second? Any other questions or comments? Alright. Well, yes. I also wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward.

And it does go to an underlying health care industry of insurance companies making decisions as to what's medical nest—medically necessary—as opposed to the, the doctors that provide the direct care. I have a much broader perspective on that, beyond just this bill, but it certainly as it applies to this legislation, I support, I, I support codifying the nondiscrimination protections, especially given what we're seeing at the federal level. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for you aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that bill on call. Yeah. Item 9, AB 1908, McKinnor.

I have to go. And I have to go I have a time certain bill to present at 9am down the hall. So, Senator Dixon, do you mind taking over for a moment?

Good morning. Ready when you are, Madam Chair.

Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1908. Public entities, including Los Angeles County, are facing growing legal exposure and rising cost of civil claims. As a result of the increased dollars at stake, funding these claims has become increasingly difficult for cities, schools, and counties. An option that a public entity might consider is a self funded victim's compensation fund, which can provide fair compensation to people more quickly than going to court.

The challenge, however, is financing the fund when cash is not available. Here to explain the issue and why AB 1908 is needed is Andrea Liebenbaum. From the chief executive office for the Los Angeles County. Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair Dixon and committee. My name is Andrea Leibenbaum with the county of Los Angeles. Judgment obligation bonds are commonly used to finance and pay awards from bench and jury trials as well as court approved settlements. Current law, however, does not contemplate the use of judgment obligation bonds to finance a victim's compensation fund.

To add to the tools available for addressing civil claims, Los Angeles County is considering the many complex elements associated with creating a victim's compensation fund, and that includes how to self finance such a fund when there is little to no cash available.

Why would LA County or any public entity consider a victim's fund? Public entities are sued at an alarming rate for a vast array of claims from serious allegations of injury and abuse to claims of harm from fallen tree limbs, broken plate equipment, potholes, and trip hazards. To the extent such claims relate to a common incident or type of claim like a fire or other natural disaster, victims funds may offer a simpler, faster alternative to litigation.

AB 1908 clarifies that the use of judgment obligation bonds extends to a public entity's self financed victim's compensation fund, and it ensures the state's validation process supports the debt financing. This technical bill specifies that the debt obligations needed to finance a victim's compensation fund, like debt obligations to fund a jury award or a settlement, become authorized when the fund is created by a local agency.

AB 1908 addresses a gap in the law, which will give LA County and all public entities the flexibility to consider using and financing a victim's compensation fund, a tool we currently lack in our efforts to address righteous claims of harm against us. Happy to answer any questions.

Did you have any more comments to make? We'll go to other witnesses. Witnesses in support of AB 1908?

No? Okay. Alright. Do we have opposition? Please come forward.

Seeing none. Any comments on the dais? Mr. Zbur.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill. I know that it's really needed, especially right now. The one question I had is that this would also extend, to entities beyond counties. Right? It would just extend to cities that are facing similar kinds. Absolutely.

Great. Well, thank you very much. I'd love to move the bill.

Thank you. One second. Any other comments from the dais? Would you before you close, I'd like to be a co author.

Oh, thank you. You're welcome.

Your pleasure. You're welcome. Would you like to make closing comments, please?

And you as well. Yes. Thank you. Yes. This is a great way that we can make sure that victims are compensated.

As we know, the county, cities, and school districts are going through lots of lawsuits. We must think about our counties and cities, and our school boards, not as corporations but as agencies. And they have services like fire, like schools, like police. And so we want to make sure that our counties and cities and school districts are whole, and I think this fund helped. And with that, I ask for your "aye" vote.

Thank you. Very good.

Motions do pass. Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian, Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.

Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur? Aye. Zbur, aye.

On this bill is on call. Thank you very much. Thank you. Alright.

Assemblymember Ramos. Good morning. Do you miss a summit member?

'm getting our witnesses together. Madam chair, if we can.

Sure.

We have two witnesses and those for technical clarification.

Okay. Very good. Please proceed.

Thank you so much. I want to begin by accepting the committee's amendments, which further clarify that this bill applies to state public lands. AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026 seeks to ensure that California Indians can freely and completely practice their customs and traditions and spiritual traditions with protections. California's home to the largest population of Native Americans in the United States with more than a 150 calling California home of native nations residing within the borders of the state of California. And each one of those cultures has its own distinct language and cultural affiliations to the state.

Yet for centuries, California Indian religious and spiritual practices have been systematically targeted, suppressed, and outlawed by policies and a horror treatment by the state of California. Under Spanish colonization, California Indians were subjected to forced conversions and enslavement. And shortly after, in the 1850, when the state was created, one of the first actions was to victimize and criminalize native cultures. Tribes were forced to witness the destruction of their culture and spiritual sites. The suppression of indigenous identity and spirituality was long standing policy in this country.

And in the state, it continued well into the twentieth century through federally driven forced assimilation efforts. In fact, California was home to 13 federal Indian boarding schools with the slogan, "save the man, kill the Indian." Schools that forcibly removed, abducted native children from their families, punish them for speaking their languages, and prohibiting their spiritual practices. These boarding schools resulted in generational trauma that continues to impact tribal communities today. Unfortunately, this is not just history;

it is still ongoing. The legacy of Indian assimilation and cultural suppression still shapes present day conditions. Sacred sites are still being desecrated, developed, or made inaccessible. Tribes remain separated from cultural items and their ancestral remains that are often held by universities and museums. Tribal members are questioned or harassed for wearing regalia or carrying ceremonial items in public spaces.

Native students and their families still face obstacles or prohibitions on wearing regalia at graduation ceremonies despite several pieces of legislation. And until recently, more than 100 place names in the state of California bear derogatory names and terms towards California's first people. These are not isolated incidents. They are the direct result of state and federal policies that sought to erase native identity, religion, and presence. This bill is necessary because native people are not afforded the same level of protection for their customs and traditions as others.

Land-based native religions based on access to specific places, yet those places remain uniquely vulnerable and under existing law. While other face receive meaningful legal protections for their practice, native communities are too often left without recourse. It is a just world. Absent the genocidal policies and laws imposed by the state of California and the Federal Government, these protections would not be necessary.

But we're dealing with a state that one of its first actions against California Indian people was putting a bounty out on their souls, shooting and killing Indian people to take their land and to strip them of their culture.

But the resiliency of California Indian people and Indian people in general is still strong today. That's why we're sitting here in 2026 before this committee moving forward on this bill to give a voice to California's first people. And given the reality that we face today, we continue to be questioned on motives, on why these bills are needed. Let's be clear. The state of California imposed drastic horrific policies against California Indian people.

It's time in 2026 that we move forward that voice of California's first people and allow them to be able to assemble on state lands for customs and traditions to continue that resiliency and that strength. AB 1881 addresses this gap in our laws by establishing a clear, enforceable standard. No state agency may substantially burden a California's tribe's right to religious practice unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. Even then, it must do so by the least restrictive means possible.

The bill ensures that state agencies allow access to sacred sites on state public lands and permit gathering of traditional plants, foods, and other materials essential to tribal customs and traditions.

The bill further protects the handling of items and regalia in the state buildings, including the state capital. Native Americans must have the same protections provided to others. Moreover, AB 1881 would align California with the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people, which affirms the rights of indigenous people to maintain their culture and traditions to grant access to and protect sacred sites and recognize their spiritual relationship with their homelands.

This bill is fundamentally about safeguarding California Indian religious freedom, not only as a human right, but as a matter of cultural survival. With me today is Fabian Almodovar, a member of thy own band of Miwok Indians, and Morningstar Gali, CEO and founder of Indigenous Justice, to speak on this very important issue.

Thank you. Please speak first. Thank you.

My name is Fabien Almodovar. I'm one of our Good Day relatives. I stand before you today, not just for myself, but for my people, past, present, and future. For us, the land is not just where we live. It's who we are.

Our ceremonies, our traditions, and our identity are tied directly to ancestral homelands. Our sacred sites hold our history, our prayers, and teachings that guide us. I carry the responsibility of my elders placed onto me to protect what was protected for me. One day, I wanna be the one teaching my nephews, my nieces, my children, and grandchildren. I want there to be something still to be left to teach them.

But too often, those places are not protected. Right now, when sacred sites are threatened or impacted, tribes are often left without real power to stop it. And once those places are disturbed or destroyed, we cannot get them back. This is why AB 1881 matters. This bill helps protect tribal religious practices by ensuring the state and local agencies connect places unnecessary burdens on them.

It also establishes free prior and informed consent, meaning tribes are included in decisions before actions are taken, not after damage is already done. And it protects the confidentiality of sacred sites, so sensitive information is not exposed in ways that could lead to harm or exploitation. As a young person, I think about what we're going to inherit. I think about whether my generation and generations after me was to have a place to pray, to learn, to stay connected to who we are.

AB 1881 helps make sure that we do that.

This is about respect. It's about protecting culture, and it's about ensuring that tribal voices are not just heard, but honored. I respectfully urge you to support AB 1881. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, members of the committee. I want to first acknowledge that we have an entire hallway of tribal leaders and California Indian tribal members, that are not able to, there's not enough seats here in the room, but we are very appreciative and grateful for, them to be here in support.

I wanna share that for eighteen years, I have served as the California tribal liaison for the International Indian Treaty Council, which works to defend, the human rights and indigenous rights, of our peoples, especially here in in California. I founded an organization called Indigenous Justice. This is a native led nonprofit that works directly with tribal nations, indigenous families, and survivors across the state.

I am here today in strong support of AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026. For California native peoples, our religion is not confined to a building. Our ceremonies, our songs, our medicines, and our prayers are tied to specific places on the land, in the mountains, in our springs, on our burial grounds, gathering areas, and cultural landscapes that have sustained our people since time immemorial. Yet for generations, California law has failed to fully protect these places.

It's only been fifty years since the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act where it was not legal for Indian peoples to be able to practice our ceremonies and our religion out in the open.

Too often, our sacred places are treated as obstacles to development instead of living places of prayer, healing, and cultural survival. Far too often, tribes are brought in too late after decisions have already been made. Too often, our sacred knowledge is exposed through public processes that were never designed to protect indigenous peoples or our burial sites.

1881 is a long overdue step toward correcting the harm that has occurred historically and continues to occur today. This bill does three critical things: It affirms that California native religious freedom deserves real legal protection, not symbolic recognition, but enforceable rights.

When state or local actions substantially burden our spiritual practices, it requires early meaningful good faith consultation with affected tribes before projects move forward. Once the sacred place is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Consultation cannot be a box to check after decisions have already been made. It protects confidentiality for sacred places, information, and cultural knowledge.

This is essential as our community should not have to expose burial sites, ceremonial locations, or spiritual practices to public records request just to seek protection. It reflects principles that indigenous peoples have long called for, respect, free prior informed consent, prevention of harm, and recognition that our spiritual practices are inseparable from the land.

There are not these are not radical concepts. They are basic principles of religious freedom and human dignity for California Indian peoples. California has often spoke about truth, healing, and tribal partnership and has made apologies and commitments, but apology without action is just that.

AB 1881 allows the state of California to put those values into practice. I urge you to support 1881 and stand on the side of protecting indigenous religious freedom, sacred places, and future generations. Thank you.

Okay. Very good. Are there any witnesses in support? Please come forward and to identify yourself and your organization.

Matt Franklin, Miwok Nisenan, grandson of the first native monument here located on Capitol Grounds, in strong support.

Thank you.

Nedrick Miller, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, stands in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Annette Williams, tribal counsel for Wilton Rancheria, in support of this bill, AB 1881. Thank you.

Thank you.

Greetings. Marina Hernandez on behalf of International Indian Treaty Council. I have a comment of support. The IITC is an international indigenous organization with consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council. IITC expresses strong support.

Just represent your organization and list the name of any organization that you support. No comment? Yes. No comment. Okay.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Josh Mize. I’m Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Osage, Quapaw, and Mahican-Paucatuck River. I’m with Indigenous Justice where I work as a Returning Relatives coordinator. I’m here in strong support of AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Rhonda Morningstar Pope Flores. I'm the former chairwoman of Buena Vista Rancheria. I'm strong support of this. I have witnessed it over and over where consultation does not work. Thank you.

My name is Laura Galvan, Southern Hill Nisenan. I'm in strong support of 1881 and appreciate everybody's work.

Hello. My name is Tona Miranda. I'm Pascua Yaqui. I'm the tribal director of Youth Forward, and we're in strong support.

Madam chair, members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, and the Chumash, in strong support.

Good morning. Heather Hostler, executive director, California Indian Legal Services, citizen, Hupa Valley Tribe, strong support. Thank you.

A'yun, Kameiko Hostler, member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, youth organizer for the California Native Vote Project, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Leia Ahuactzin. I'm a tribal council with Wilton Rancheria and here in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Aerin Scalco. I'm a citizen of the Barona Band of Mission Indians, and I'm in strong support. Thank you

Calvin Hedrick. I am from the California Native Vote Project in strong support and also for my friends at the California Rural Indian Health Board, strong support.

Thank you.

Antonio. My name is Antonio from Wilton Rancheria in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. [Name] of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support.

Thank you. Estíbaliz Díaz, school counselor, Riverside County. I'm in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Elena Baca-Santa Cruz, council member from the great city of Moreno Valley in Riverside County, and I am in strong support. Thank you.

I'm with Indigenous Justice, and I'm part of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. On behalf of our people, we're here in strong support.

Ralph Hatch, cultural preservationist with Shingle Springs Rancheria and, citizen of Wilton Rancheria. Sorry about that. And then a strong support. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ignacio Taylor, descendant of the Wichita affiliated tribes, and I'm here in strong support of AB1881. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Rico Miranda. I'm Rumsen Ohlone. Strong support. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Yes. My name is Bruce Gally, Pit River Tribe. I'd like to bring it to your attention that back in 1970—

Excuse me. Just I'm sorry, sir. Just state your organization and your position of support.

So I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay.

I'm Adrienne Lent from Bridgeport Indian Colony in Mono County, California, also an employee of Indigenous Justice, and we support this bill. Thank you.

Hi. Chris Lindstrom with the California Tribal Business Alliance in support.

Very good. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? None? Why don't we have if we have any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

If we have a primary witness, come to the table, please. Assembly bill 1881. Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, vice chair and committee members. My name is Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation to the author, his staff, and the sponsors for spending time with us, for sharing their intent for this bill, and for allowing us to listen to the sponsor's perspectives. We submitted our oppose unless amended position to ensure that this bill was narrowed to apply to state public lands as stated by the author.

And we are hopeful to get to neutral on the measure, and we would like to see the committee's analysis and the committee amendments come into print before we do that. We do believe it may be helpful moving forward to also include a definition of state public lands as is referenced in the committee analysis. The April 8 version of this bill, that was amended last week, we have all collectively worked very hard on.

And, again, we're very, very appreciative of the author's staff, their time, the committee staff, and their time for continuing to work with us on this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of the rural counties. We're also opposing unless amended on the measure. Appreciate the author and the sponsors working with us to address our concerns. I think a lot of those concerns are likely to be addressed in the committee amendments that are come out going to come out on the bill.

We hope to get to a neutral position. Look forward to continued discussions with you all. I think we're very interested in talking about ways to improve tribal consultation, making sure that it's a meaningful process. And then also identifying what gaps exist in federal RLUIPA and making sure that they're plugged. So anyway, look forward to future conversations with you on these issues.

Appreciate your willingness to meet us. Thank you.

Thank you. If we have some witnesses in opposition to AB 1881, please come forward.

Good morning, madam vice chair and members. Kareem Drissi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I wanna thank the author and the committee for their work on this bill. Very much appreciate the author's leadership on this measure. As noted in the analysis, much more work to be done, but look forward to coordinating with the author.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Appreciate the dialogue with, the author and the sponsor and, his staff. We're still respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Donald Gilbert on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in opposition. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Britney Barsotti, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, also by proxy for the Association of California Water Agencies, in an oppose unless amended position, but we hope to get to neutral as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Delgado on behalf of California State Association of Counties, oppose unless amended.

Thank you. Any other speakers in opposition, AB 1881? Seeing none, we'll bring enough to dice, mister Zbur.

Assemblymember Ramos, I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's really important. I'd love to be added as a coauthor, and I will be supporting it today and would love to move the bill.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? Yes, please.

I just wanna thank the Assemblymember for this bill and for his continued advocacy on behalf of California's native people. I had the privilege of being the chair of the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee for a brief stint. And one of the things that I think was such a privilege about that role was working with California's native people to talk about California's water the way, honestly, it was stewarded much more responsibly when it was under your control.

And to realize, honestly, and this is something I should have known, but it really took being in that position to fully understand that when the water rights system was established, native people weren't considered people. They couldn't get water rights despite the fact that honestly the water was originally all yours.

And so we have so much work to do to create a system that honors the first people of this land and that gives the ability to to be who you have always been on that land. And I think that is what this bill ultimately is attempting to do. And to me, there is no question that it's the right thing for California to do. And so it's an honor to support it. I wanna thank the author for bringing it.

And, as I mentioned yesterday, I hope you will add me as a co author.

Any other questions? I just have one question. This is such a momentous bill and very serious. And as it goes is it being heard by any other committee or is it just judiciary?

I believe this is our first committee to be heard in.

There's no other committee?

Think it goes Appropriations.

Well, it has such an important, significant impact on the state of California and public lands. Is there a map that shows all the public lands? Is that part of the package of understanding the analysis of the bill—all the lands that would be open to access or use through a process?

So any state public land you want to access for a public ceremony or use or purpose—is there now—would, if this bill were to become law, what is the process? Or how, of all the public lands in California, how would that process work?

So the the process is, in this committee was narrowing the bill from a local governments counties to, state public lands only. And so you could look at the state public lands or state parks. There's different things. There hasn't been an actual map put down. However, we could actually start to look into that as the bill continues to move forward in the legislature.

So the bill traction would be here in this committee, and hopefully, we would get out. We go to a probes. Hopefully, we get out of a probes, and it'll go to the Senate. So there's a long way still to get to where we need to be in fine tuning this bill.

Well and I'm just thinking, I mean, it's all-

But, Assemblymember, to answer your question the the answer is yes. The reason for this bill is to afford California's first people the right to practice customs and traditions on land that traditionally is theirs.

Oh, I understand.

And it does cover the whole state of California. However, working with the opposition, we narrowed the bill down to state public lands only.

Okay. Alright. Well, this is a very significant step going forward, and I look forward to the public discussion on it. I mean, your righteous cause is there. It's just the twenty-first century now and how that all applies to state public lands.

I don't have an answer. I'm not a land use attorney. I'm not an attorney or land use expert in any way. It's highly momentous and I think requires a lot of discussion on how to accommodate your beautifully expressed words and desires in the twenty-first century. So how can we all come together on that?

That would be what I would look for as we go forward the entire process. So any closing comments do you have?

Well, thank you. And certainly, in closing, it's a duty that we continue to move forward. That's why we're here to ask for basically justice from the state legislature to move forward in an area that we all know that the state of California has a horrid past in treatment towards California's first people. The right to conduct ceremonies, was taken and is sometimes beaten and killed for practicing culture.

And that was in 1850 when the governor put out bounties on California and people paid for by taxpayers dollars to shoot and kill Indian people in the state of California.

That was 1850. We're in 2026 with this bill in front of you asking for a piece of legislation to honor California's first people. Think about that for a minute. It takes a piece of legislation for the state of California to honor California's first people. I believe the state moving forward in approving this bill signals to California's first people a true apology by allowing—allowing—

We have to sit here and use words 'allow' California Indian people to practice their customs and traditions on land that is traditionally theirs. In 2026, we're asking you to support California's first people and vote 'aye' on this bill.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Let's vote.

Motion is do passes amended to appropriations. Kalra. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Kahan?

Aye. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Bryan? Connolly? Dixon?

Aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabedian Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Sanchez? Stefani? Zbur? Zbur, Aye.

And I'm sure, would you like to take over? Sure. Alright. Thank you.

Miss Ortega, item 162465. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you, chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2465 today. Right now, businesses that profit from private detention facilities are contract with an agency that engages in immigration enforcement are receiving state grants, loans, or tax credits paid for by our taxes. AB 2465 will put an end to that. California has long maintained that public funds should not support industries or business practices that undermine our state values.

California taxpayers should not be forced to support businesses who contract with the make with the immigration agencies to terrorize our neighbors and destroy our local economies.

AB 2465 bans any business that is directly invested in, owns, manages, or profits from a private detention facility or any businesses that is contracting with an agency engaging in immigration enforcement from receiving any state provided grant, loan, or tax credit. This bill will also establish the California Immigrant Resilience Fund to support immigrant services and programs. With me today are, witnesses today are Jessica Marquez with the superintendent Tony Thurmond's office and minister Arlington Tugwell with Faith in Action East Bay.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Jessica Marquez, and I am a legislative representative at the California Department of Education. I'm speaking on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Toni Thurman, who is a sponsor. And thank you, Assemblymember Ortega, and her staff, for authoring this legislation. As we all know, over the past year, the federal administration has intensified its immigration enforcement on our communities.

Across California, the nation, entire families are living in fear. Workers are staying home from work. Students are missing school or shifting to online learning. Some advocates have described these conditions as the ICE pandemic. At the department, we have been deeply disturbed by the deportation of a deaf six-year-old student who has been enrolled in the Department of Education's own school for the deaf in Fremont.

He was detained and deported without access to critical devices that support his ability to hear. He has even, he's been deprived of his ability to communicate with his own family and understand what is even happening to him. These aggressive enforcement practices are threatening the health, safety, and stability of our young of our youngest community members, specifically our TK through 12 students.

For example, immigration rates in the Central Valley early last year caused such widespread fear that nearly a quarter of students across five school districts stayed home from school, according to a Stanford University study. This kind of fear creates a chilling effect on attendance, academic performance, and straining already limited district resources.

And in California, we know attendance matters. School funding is tied to average daily attendance. Meaning, these absences don't just impact students; they directly impact the resources schools need to serve them. Meanwhile, private detention operators profit from higher detention rates. When detention is profitable, there is a built-in incentive to expand enforcement intensity even when it harms public health instability.

California may not control federal immigration enforcement, but it does control how state funds are used. I respectfully ask for your support on this legislation.

Thank you. I have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Arlington Tugwell. I'm a minister at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church. I'm a leader with faith in action in East Bay. We are living in a time where fear and families are being separated, destroyed mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

This is not the dream. The difference is race, class, culture, or opinion have become weapons of division. There is no future in discrimination and no hope in division. Our future is rooted in faith, and faith knows no prejudice. AB 2465 is needed.

There's hundreds of judges around the country have ruled more than 4,000 times that the federal administration is detaining people unlawfully. The enemy uses division to delay our destiny. If we are too busy fighting one another, we cannot fight the true enemy of our souls. We are one body members, many members, and each part is needed. Discrimination weakens us, but unity strengthens us.

In 2025, thirty-two people died while in, being detained by the government. Unity is not optional. It is divine. When we close to unite across all boundaries, we mirror unity, and that's why we're called here today to bring the voices of the suffering to you as you witness our faith and our love. SB 2465, let's push it.

Mass detention and immigration enforcement is threatening and unlawfully holding people in definite detention without due process. Families are being separated, and entire generation of children are being traumatized. The impact have led some to describe it as ICE pandemic. Let's bring order back with SB 2465. I support SB 2465.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other people in the room in support? Come to the mic. Name, position only, please.

Mr. Chair, or chair, members. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Maribel Arizmendi, community organizer from Sacramento Area Congregations Together or Sacramento Act, strongly support.

William Smith, Walnut Concrete, Walnut Creek, Concord, support.

Rosa Ortega, Union City, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Brockett, resident of Oakland, and I'm strongly in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Mi nombre es Diana Lopez, and I support.

Thank you.

Maria Luisa Perez de Oakland, I support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Robertson, in support.

Thank you.

Teresa Flores Onofre, executive director at Sacramento Act, in support.

Richmond. Ana Romero. I support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Romero Magaña. Richmond. I support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Gloria Abalos from Richmond, I support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alba Hernandez, community organizer with Faith in Action East Bay, I support.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Crystal Jimenez. I am from PACT, People Acting in Community Together, and we support 2465.

Hi. My name is...from PACT San Jose, from Santa Clara County. Yes. I support AB 2465.

From PACT San Jose, I support. A,AB 20,2465.

I'm Mary Idso with PACT from San Jose. I support this bill.

Aurora Solis from PACT, People Acting in Communities Together, and I support 2465.

Good morning, chair and members. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Inclusive Action For the City, in support. Thank you.

Hey members and chair, Eddie Carmona, director of organizing with PICO California, in support of 2465.

Volunteer coordinator for Faith in Action East Bay in support of AB 2465. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rene Bayardo for PECO California, one of the proud cosponsors of the bill.

Also, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center that's having immigrant day to day and is not able to be here, as well as California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Immigrant Defense Law Center, La Defensa, Justice to Jobs Coalition, Friends Committee of Legislation in California, California's United for Responsible Budget, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Secure Justice, Entrapped Poverty California, South Bay People Power, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, A New Path, Universidad Popular, California Healthy, Nail Salon Collaborative, Courage California, and AAPI Force.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2465?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. I wanna be very clear. We are not here in opposition at a defense for the horrible events that have been discussed today. Rather, our position is limited to some practical concerns we have with terminology used in the bill.

To start, the bill is not limited to companies that direct—directly with ICE related to detention centers. It forbids any contract with any agency that is engaged in immigration enforcement, which is defined as any agency that engages or insists—sorry, assists—with immigration enforcement. For any company with any such contract, they would be denied any state provided benefit, subsidy, grant loan, or tax credit from the state of California if the service is for the purpose of aiding or furthering immigration enforcement.

I'd like to thank the staff and their analysis for highlighting a few of our concerns about the vagueness of some of these provisions. And as noted on pages seven, eight of the analysis, it is therefore unclear exactly which contracts would be covered underneath the bill.

For example, a company may offer IT services to DHS, which houses a series of other sub agencies that do things like process i9s, process asylum applications, what have you. It would be unclear if that would qualify under the bill or if there's medical service that provides medical services to those who may be detained. So, we are hoping to gain some more clarity as the bill moves forward in the process.

I know my colleagues handling the series of similar bills out there intends to reach out regarding some of the terminology used. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2465?

Kate Eager with Weideman Group, on behalf of the California Bankers Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Matt Easley, on behalf of the California Chapters of Associated General Contractors, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Zbur.

First of all, I'd love to move the bill. Thank you. I know the author is gonna tighten this up to the extent that, you know, some of these things are unintended. But the reason why this bill is so important is because we don't have that many tools, frankly. And one of the tools that the state of California has is basically how we basically use our funds in order to dissuade activities that we don't wanna happen.

You know, there are in—there are constitutional limitations on how we can actually respond to this horror, this horrible situation, where we've got ICE coming in and invading our communities and creating such havoc and violence to basically Californians. So, I think this is a, you know, this isn't one of the approaches that I think is likely to work. And, so, with that, I would, love to move the bill.

Is there—is there a second?

Okay. Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. And I also wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's—it is an important bill, but I believe that we also need to fine tune this bill because we don't wanna have unintended consequences, especially with our business community because I'm sure our business community is also dealing with the effects of all these raids happening with people going to shop at our businesses. They're being afraid to shop in businesses, to our workers not feeling safe going to work.

And so, our business community wants to help, and I'm hoping that the conversations will continue.

We can fine tune this bill. But I do wanna thank you, the author, for bringing this bill forward because we do need to protect our community. My district is majority Latino, and I'm seeing it in my district, and we have to do everything in our power to protect our community. So, thank you, and I will be supporting your bill today. Thank you.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And I wanna reiterate a lot of what my colleague from Los Angeles said, which is our budget should be a statement of our values. And so, really, that raises how we spend our money every day—California's hard earned tax dollars. And to the extent that we are spending our money, our tax dollars, to incentivize corporations that are, frankly, taking actions that are antithetical to the values of California, that are hurting Californians, that are hurting the state, I think this is actually an innovative and wise approach, frankly.

So, I do agree with some of my colleagues that I had, I have concerns with the breadth of agencies doing immigration enforcement, but I know that you've had conversations and we'll continue to make sure that it's, as my colleague said, fine-tuned to really get at what it is you're trying to achieve here in the bill. So, I'm happy to support it today.

But I think, as we look at what we can do, we are hampered by Constitution and the Supremacy Clause. It's the reality of states' rights, and sometimes it helps us, and sometimes it hurts us.

And so, I think we should continue to look at this question of our own dollars and our own people's money because they don't want it spent this way. So, thank you for making this move.

Any other questions or comments? I would like to thank the author from this board and for everyone that's here today, the PECO network, folks from PACT, from San Jose, you know, taking your time to, to have your voice heard makes a difference. And I think today is an evident—is evidence of that. But I wanna thank the author.

You know, this is, unfortunately, one of many different types of legislation where we are trying to find what mechanisms do we have to push back against what's happening to our community, to members of our community.

That's what ultimately is about what's happening to our people, and it's unacceptable what's happening to our people. And the suggestion and and I know, you know, has been stated, obviously, the author is gonna work, you know, if there's ways to tighten it up somewhat. But I'll say if there's concern about it being overly broad, our immigration enforcement has been beyond overly broad, and that's why we're here. And a lot of the businesses impacted by that overly broad immigration enforcement are small businesses.

When I go in San Jose, I go to businesses on Story and King, and the parking lots, at times, are half as full as they normally are, where usually you can't even find parking.

And that's because people are staying home because they're afraid, and that's completely unacceptable. So, I think this is one of a number of a package of bills that is incredibly important for us to push back against the cruel actions of our Federal Government. And I would like to be added as a coauthor. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Absolutely. I won't repeat everything that you've already said in the importance of this bill, but I will say, you have my commitment to work on the redefining the agencies that we are targeting in this bill. So, that's gonna be a work in progress, and I do commit to that.

So, with that, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Let me do one. And I I like to call up the incredibly persistent assembly member Juan Carrillo on time and here. And he listened to some wonderful bills this morning. We have another wonderful bill we're Gonna Be hearing from him right now. It's AB 2662.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members. Again, thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill twenty six sixty two. On 01/07/2025, the first ice rate took place in Bakersfield in Kern County, California. Since that day, we have continued to see this federal administration detain not only immigrants, but also United States citizens. In many of these cases, agents from US immigration and consular enforcement acted without warrants, without due process, and without allowing individual access to phone calls, their families, or legal representation.

That is not how justice is supposed to work in this country. In my own district, we saw two ICE raids just last year, and the fear they created did not stay local. It spread across California. Families were shaken, communities were disrupted, and trust was deeply damaged. This is why AB 2662 is so important.

This is a modest common sense measure that would establish a formal process for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions, assess their impacts in our communities, and issue public reports. It would also allow us to recommend legislative responses to prevent the kind of raw and dangerous behavior we're increasingly increasingly seen from federal law enforcement agencies. There should be no place in this nation where such actions are considered acceptable, and there must be accountability for those who violate the right and protections of our democracy guarantees.

AB 2662 is a step forward. It acknowledges that we are seen is no longer isolated.

It is becoming normalized. And if we're serious about upholding our democratic ideals, then we have responsibility to act. With me today is Sarno Torres with Las Clinica Del Valle and Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, chair and members. Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. For over forty years, we have advocated for farm workers, low wage workers, and mixed status families. We provide outreach assistance and high quality legal assistance on constitutional rights, immigration, fraud prevention, the naturalization process. We are here to speak in support of AB 2662.

Immigration enforcement has had a very chilling effect throughout every corner of California. The likelihood of families and kids having exposure to immigration enforcement is just very high. This could be a dad getting pulled over on a traffic stop, heading to work, a sister getting pulled over on on her way to an appointment at a clinic, or this is an individual who is going to the county courthouse and wanting to access the legal system. These are the exact scenarios where Californians are the most vulnerable.

And so even in this climate, rural legal services does continue to encourage naturalization, especially for people who do not have a prior record.

But over the last year and a half, rural legal services programs have seen immigration cases that when under previous practices would have been granted. Now, they're getting removed off calendar or, applicants are going through a very arduous screening process. And so, actually, just yesterday, I was informed that immigration applicants are being detained at USCIS biometric appointments during the naturalization process. So as a result, a lot of immigration attorneys are rereviewing their caseload just to make sure to ensure maximum due process rights.

And also, the most important is to do everything we can to keep families together.

So we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Arnold Torres. I represent Clinica, Elvaida Salinas in Petaluma Health Centers. Our major concern has always been the health of all people, especially what health centers provide is to working poor, communities. We make no, decision on their status. We see people based on their need.

We see this bill as a very, as the member indicated, a very modest initiative going forward. We do not see how this could not be supported on a bipartisan basis. This issue is about the constitution of The United States being followed consistently. We know as the chairman of the committee just said a moment ago, things are not what they've been as long as we've known, as long as we've gone to school and learned from the civics classes of how government is supposed to work.

So it requires, I think, for this committee to recognize that AB 2662 is pushing the envelope in having, this committee and this working group look at the constitutional issues, especially, the tenth amendment that is about states' rights.

When you have a Federal Government who has been documented as being a rogue operation when it comes to enforcement of immigration law, There has to be a different response from the states. This is not an issue of supremacy, the supremacy clause. This is an issue of states identifying the responsibilities and changes that perhaps state should undertake. California is not the only state that has been impacted by this. Many other states have, and I think other states would follow that lead.

So it is our hope that we will continue to work with the member on this legislation to give a little bit more responsibilities. We think the analysis that the committee has done does a very good job of tracking what the problems are. We ask for your aye vote, but we really hope it will have bipartisan support because it is about the constitution and protecting the constitutional rights of all people in this country.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2662? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2662? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, comments, motions?

We have a motion. Second. And a second? I wanna thank you, Assemblymember of Carrillo, for bringing this forward. I think, again, this is really about having the right information.

Like, you know, it's hard to know what to do, how to react if you don't have the right information. And I think, you know, having an understanding because oftentimes we hear one off, you hear a story, you hear from one department or one, you know, nonprofit, one organization. This happened here in LA. This happened in San Jose. We need to really have a better sense of what's happening statewide so we can respond to it.