Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning. Buenos Dias. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our committee hearings in the Capitol Building. I ask all members, pretty much all members, thank you very much, to be present in Room 113 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

A little housekeeping. File item number two, s p 958, has been pulled from the consent calendar. We have 17 bills on today's agenda, five of which are on consent. Those are file item eight, sb 1205, file item nine, sb1274, File item 11, sb 1055. File item 15, sb 1170. File items 17, SB 1438 by the Committee on Local Government. And madam, can we establish quorum?

[Roll Call]

I see. If if I could add if I could add what our consultant said is that there's two ways of being in compliance. One currently is the seller does it. What you're trying to address is another option, which is the buyer and the seller together have an agreement that the that the sell that the buyer is going to take care of it. Right? So it's just adding that option for the two of them.

Right. And then notifying the fire agency so that the fire enforcement agency can then come and and inspect and make sure it gets done.

Buyer and the seller will have to agree who's gonna comply with the

request. Yes. Exactly.

I see. Yeah. Not burden is not necessarily on the seller. Right.

I see. Exactly. Yeah.

Okay. As long as we prevent the fire. Yeah. Yeah. That's affordable.

It's a good point.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Thank you, Senator Salgado. I think we have one more.

Thank you, madam chair. Paul Ramey for the Personal Insurance Federation of California in support.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion by Senator Salgado. Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry. You have an opportunity to close.

No. I I appreciate the comments. I mean, we've got some experience voices of experience here. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Alright. Go ahead.

The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Senators deRazzo? Aye. DeRazzo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Ashby.

Cervantes, Laird Searto? Aye. Searto, aye.

The vote is four zero. The bill is on call.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have she's not here. Nobody's here. Kamalda. Oh, since he is here, ready and available, we will move on to item number three, Senator Kamaldin.

Welcome.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair and fellow committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1041, the Fire Hardening Act of 2026. I want to start by thanking the Chair sincerely and the committee staff for their work with my office on this bill.

I will be accepting the committee amendments as proposed, which make a number of improvements; just briefly to summarize: clearly stating and limiting the type of wildfire safety improvements that could be financed under a PACE loan if this bill were adopted, providing hardship provisions, including if a wildfire destroys a property to remove the lien, and requiring certain reporting requirements so that we're aware of the effect of this bill and can make improvements if necessary to strengthen consumer protections.

To put this in context, California is facing a new wildfire reality, and Senator Becker addressed this in his prior comments on his bill. Recent devastating wildfires have made clear that wildfire risk is no longer limited to traditionally designated high-risk areas, and virtually every community in our state is now vulnerable.

At the same time, we know the simple truth that proven home hardening upgrades, like fire-resistant roofs, ember-resistant vents, and other hardening measures can dramatically reduce damage and save lives. But there is a fundamental problem: the cost of those improvements.

These upgrades often require significant upfront investment, and too many homeowners simply can't afford to make them, especially as insurance becomes more expensive or unavailable, and this is also essential to make sure that properties remain insured or can secure insurance.

The Legislature attempted to address this in 2018 by allowing Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE loans, for financing fire hardening. PACE is a proven tool that allows homeowners to finance upgrades and repay them over time through their property tax bill using private capital, not taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, third-party administrators were effectively enabled to offer this financing, specifically because it was limited in its scope.

The prior legislation limited it to certain fire severity areas when we know that fire risk can exist outside of those fire severity areas. So SB 1041 finally delivers on this original promise that was authorized by this prior legislation. It provides clarity and explicitly defines eligible fire hardening improvements, and there's a scope of that, thanks to the committee amendments.

SB 1041 expands access. Instead of limiting eligibility to certain fire hazard areas, SB 1041 allows homeowners throughout California, in more than 350 PACE-authorized jurisdictions, to access this financing immediately. And just to put this in context, in my district, I represent the East Bay.

1991, there was a catastrophic wildfire, up until the last decade, probably the most catastrophic wildfire in the state's history, the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire, which destroyed-- which killed 25 people and destroyed 3,500 homes, and every day, my constituents in the East Bay live with that risk that there's gonna be a catastrophic wildfire.

And I'm proud that my district, particularly the City of Berkeley, took steps to adopt the most stringent Zone Zero standards in the State of California, and I acknowledge the State of California is also promulgating Zone Zero standards. And in order to implement Zone Zero, we have to help property owners do the work to remove vegetation, hard their homes, so that they're compliant with those requirements, they're not being penalized, and also, they're making the properties more fire-safe.

Additionally, we know that wildfire spreads so quickly, as we've seen in Southern California over the last year, sadly last year. And one fire can spark embers that can go for miles and set off fires throughout a large area. And so, urban wildfire risk is real, not just wildfire risk in the rural areas of the Wildland Urban Interface. Urban wildfire risk is real.

That's why I'm bringing this bill forward because this is important to my constituents in the East Bay and important to people throughout the State of California to make sure we have the resources for people who can't access that capital.

I acknowledge that, you know, and the Mortgage Bankers addressed the-- addressed this in their letter in the portal that, well, you can actually get a bank loan to finance some of these improvements. This is particularly tailored for people that cannot access that type of capital. And we have many people that live throughout California, including my district, who are house rich and cash poor. They have a lot of equity, but they don't have the capital to be able to finance this work.

I also wanna acknowledge the comments that opposition have made around the historical issues with the PACE Program, and those concerns are real. And I'm committed to continue to work with opposition. In fact, we've met with, I think, nearly everyone, including the Mortgage Bankers, the various consumer protection groups to hear their concerns.

I'm committed to working with them, if this bill moves forward today, on strengthening consumer protections to make sure that we do not put people at risk of default, but that we give them a workable tool that can help them finance this critical work; was essential for life safety and the safety of neighborhoods throughout the State of California. Through these sensible changes, SB 1041 finally guarantees that homeowners have accessible financing they need to defend their futures.

With me to testify in support is Terry McHale from CAL FIRE Local 2881-- thank you for their support in defending our state--and Dean Grafilo with Renew Financial, and I believe we have dealt-- they'll also use the two minutes as well with another witness.

Good morning. Two minutes.

Thank you. Morning, Chair, senators. Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy, here on behalf of Renew Financial. I'm gonna introduce Laura Bravo, Vice President of Government Relations for Renew Financial, who will provide testimony, and then here for technical questions. Laura?

Good morning. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you. Chair, members of the committee, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1041. If we're serious about building community-wide fire resilience, we must empower property owners to protect their homes. In 2018, the Legislature recognized this in SB 465, allowing PACE for fire hardening, but drafting issues have limited its availability.

SB 1041 corrects these issues and modernizes the program, clarifying eligible improvements and expanding access beyond limited fire zones. PACE allows local governments to leverage private capital to achieve policy goals without the use of public funds. Eligibility is based on property equity and ability to repay rather than credit score, making PACE more accessible.

Importantly, PACE, in 2026, is highly regulated and safe for consumers. The rate of complaints is at a record low, and foreclosures by PACE providers are nearly nonexistent.

Wait. I'm sorry. We have too much noise back there. I'm sorry. Can you all-- can you all be-- thank you very much. It was hard to hear you. And maybe you can speak in the mic. Thank you.

Thank you. PACE ability to repay requirements now mirror those for mortgages, ensuring that consumers have enough verified income to handle the new payments. PACE also now has consumer protections that other financing options don't offer: contractor vetting, phone calls with consumers to ensure they actually understand the financing, and more. Many Californians lack affordable financing for fire-hardening retrofits.

SB 1041 provides an accessible, consumer-protected solution, and in the past few days, has garnished new support from the California Professional Firefighters and numerous homeowners. I strongly urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Sir, good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Terry McHale with Aaron Read & Associates, representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. We've represented CAL FIRE for 45 years, and we've seen the extraordinary changes, especially in the last 25 years where we've seen the budget grow from a little over 500 million to $4 billion. CAL FIRE 2881 has strongly supported home-hardening legislation, defensible space legislation, and two years ago, we were behind the bill that Senator Bill Dodd put out on innovations in suppression and prevention.

In 2018, we supported the Hannah-Beth Jackson, subsequent to the Tubbs Fire, which resulted in 22 deaths and the loss of 5,500 structures, and the Camp Fire a year later, where 89 people died and 15,000 structures were lost. This new normal in California is extraordinarily devastating, and it no longer is in a seasonal period and it is no longer restricted to any single part of the state.

SB 1041 expands the PACE Program financing so more homeowners can invest in the critical wildfire improvement safety improvements. It removes the outdated geographic restrictions and allows any community with an existing program to participate, recognizing, Madam Chair and members of the committee, that the risk is statewide. We believe this bill is stronger than the Hannah-Beth Jackson bill of seven years ago.

We appreciate very much the committee's willingness to work with the author to make sure that there are greater safeguards, and we're also encouraged by this particular author's willingness to be amenable and to listen to opposition to make sure that it works, that it's not only pragmatic, but that it's practical. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else-- anyone here? Let me see. We already had two witnesses. Does anybody wanna come forward in support of SB 1041? Please give your name and your organization.

Morning, Chair and members. Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of Home Run Financing, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 1041? Okay. Seeing none. Anyone here in opposition to SB 1041? Okay. You have two witnesses? Okay.

Thank you to the committee members and to Senator Arreguín for being so open. We had a very productive meeting last Friday, and we will continue to have a conversation. I am Lisa Sitkin, here from the National Housing Law Project, on behalf of a coalition of homeowner advocates. These are legal aid attorneys, housing counselors, and others who work directly with homeowners who are the ones who would be getting these PACE loans.

We are currently in opposition to the loan, though--I'm sorry, to the bill--though certainly willing to have discussions about changes that might be made. We continue to see, day after day, week after week, problems with the PACE Program. And while we agree wholeheartedly that there is a need to be able to have homeowners afford this kind of improvement to their home, probably throughout the state--we're not contesting any of that--we do not think that PACE is the way to do that. We think that it continues to have serious design flaws related to the contractors who have a conflict of interest.

They are selling the financing, and they are the ones who are gonna get all the money in their pocket. We see price gouging. We see misrepresentations about the nature of the program and what the homeowner's obligations will be. And at the back end, when there has been fraud and the homeowner has been wronged and ends up with a loan they cannot afford, we see endless strategies to insulate the financing companies that pays administrators from any responsibility for what their solicitors' salesforce essentially have done.

Most recently, in Alameda County in Oakland, we have an 82-year-old homeowner who actually would have been somebody who would be looking to this kind of financing. Her insurer told her she needed a new roof in order to get renewed. So she was needing a new roof and that is a real need.

However, she was sold by the contractor a PACE loan that she was told was gonna be $30,000 that she could pay in small amounts over time. She ended up with a $55,000 lien, not understanding that was the case. Over the course of the life of this loan, it will cost her $115,000, and her monthly--I'm sorry--her annual property tax bill has gone up by $4,000.

She lives on a fixed income on Social Security. There is no way she can afford this. And this is one of so many cases that organizations like Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, which sees homeowners throughout the state, is seeing. These are loans from 2023, '24, '25. This is not a problem that has been solved.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors. I first wanted to say, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Trying to solve this dual crisis of insurance accessibility and home-hardening affordability is an honorable venture. However, the Treasurers and Tax Collectors have been on the front lines of the very tail end of really abusive practices of these liens, and some of the stories that have come forward over the last decade or so that the reforms have been pursued have really been heartbreaking.

The bill, as proposed to be amended, would allow the JPA administrators to remove the liens if the home is burned down, but that only would be going forward. So we still have issues with folks whose homes have burned in previous catastrophic wildfires where we were lucky if maybe the JPA would strip them off. We do not have the power to do it.

Senator Caballero was, you know, our ally a few years ago and ran legislation authorizing Treasurers Tax Collectors to strip the lien if a home had been burned and we were not able to get that bill to the governor's desk.

And so we see these folks come in who have literally lost everything and are probably uninsured, and while a lot of the other pieces of your tax bill can be discharged, the lien runs with the property, and so we're watching folks that might have to sell their property because they were underinsured and can't afford to rebuild, and then also they have to pay off this lien because it stays with the property and it also survives bankruptcy. So these are really tragic stories that we've seen, so we're just very reticent to see the program expanded, but again, we wanted to acknowledge your goal here.

But I also wanted to let you know if the bill does go forward in some form, even as amended, we had a conversation with the association and, just for context, the chair is from Contra Costa County, but we have Solano County with the LNU Complex Fire, Los Angeles County Treasurer Tax Collectors represented on the committee, a few other, and Butte County that's been through the Paradise Fire, and everything that has to happen for property owners in the wake of a bill-- a fire where your house burns down.

And one of their concerns was, you know, their board of supervisors are talking about this, this need to do something to help homeowners harden their homes, but the liens that we're talking about in this interest rate environment, a PACE lien could be somewhere between 10 and 12%, and the folks that this is seeking to help are people who already don't have access to traditional financing, which is gonna be lower.

And we're not-- this is not a-- this is not far out in the future. These are bills that come due on April 10th and December 10th, as you know, because of some other bills we've carried, and if you can't pay your tax bill, your 10 or 11% PACE lien is gonna have another 18% on top of it because that is what it costs property owners who can't pay their taxes on time.

Their property taxes accrue at 18% per year if you are defaulted or delayed in paying your taxes. We don't wanna do that to folks. We take it very seriously and we cannot parcel out what stuff we can accept for payment. I also would wanna observe to you-- yeah, I know.

There's so much here. I've been working on it a while. The number of parties involved in getting paid for these transactions is far greater. Please be suspicious of the number of hands in the cookie jar when we're talking about this to protect people. And finally, there is no guarantee that even if someone takes out $100,000 lien on their property, that they will be able to afford their insurance or get renewed.

And so they may not even be able to ensure the improvement that they are getting put on their property tax bill, and that is of grave concern to us even with the ability to strip it off. Sorry for going so long. There's just a lot here. But again, thank you, Senator. I know you're trying to solve a very serious problem, and we regret our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Anyone else who wants to speak? We'll have the MeToos. Your name and organization, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dani Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, who is one of many of the members of the California Energy Justice Coalition. Want to thank the senator for engaging with us. Regretfully opposed.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. Mortgage lenders are opposed for a slightly different reason outlined in our letter. We have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Indira McDonald, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and we appreciate continued talks regarding our concerns, and we're opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of the Housing and Economic Rights Advocates and Public Counsel for all the reasons the witness has stated.

Rob Wilson of the California's Credit Unions, here in respectful opposition. Echo the comments of the Bankers. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition to SB 1041? Okay. Seeing none. Questions or comments? Senator Seyarto?

Yeah. So I have the unfortunate experience of this being one of the big regrets I ever had as a public official, is when I was the Chair of WRCOG, and we had the opportunity to set up a PACE Program. And we did. And I thought, yeah, people that can't get the traditional financing can actually participate in getting-- and at the time, it was more of the climate-related improvements.

What ensued-- and I say this by way of-- I've had several different windows into this program, and one of them is my wife has a tax business and she did taxes for people for many years. So I got to see the short-term, I got to see what happened with the contractors, and then I got to see the long-term effects of what this program had done to people and their finances.

And then some people, it put them into financial ruin. I got to experience the sales part of it. I actually had a person, when I was the Chair of WRCOG, come to my house to sell me improvements, and it was a government program and it wouldn't cost me nothing.

$31,000 was the quote to paint my house. At the time, it would cost about 4,000 to paint a house. It it gave me some insight onto some of the abuse that's out there. And I know we tried to make some guardrails to to to keep that under control.

To me, opening this program up to suck people into that type of financing is the same as somebody offering somebody a 30% loan that doesn't know what 30% loans are. They get the money, and then the next thing you know, they're paying this enormous amount. There are a lot somebody from the PACE program currently, because once I I wrote it off, I used to be its biggest fan, and and now I'm, I regret being that, because what I saw it do to people.

And and so there are a lot of different things that we need to do, and I applaud you for, trying to go down that road with this. But there are just some places we should not be getting money from to do projects like that.

A lot of people when they get older, they're depending on the equity in their home to be able to sell a home and then move on to their next step, whether it's an assisted living situation or whatever, they need all the equity they can get. They're doing that. And only to find out that they have this giant lien on their property. They also look at the the first time they get their property tax bill and and find the amount on that.

And and my wife is explaining to them why their property tax is higher, why they can't refinance their property because that's also something else they were unable to do because a refinance would require them to pay that loan off because no refinancing bank wanted to be subordinate to that Lien.

So, it has too many problems for me to support it. I support the concept. We need to do something to help people who can't afford to to do that. But if they can't afford and to get a loan through traditional, you know, like a an equity loan, a home equity loan, or a second mortgage to to pay for their their and go through traditional means, they're probably already on the hook for not being able to afford this, and and they're right to be taken advantage of.

And it's what should cost them a $30,000 improvement winds up costing him three times that amount.

And the other part is and I think he took care of this in some of the amendments, which I was glad to see. When you you you can't use a loan like that to do something you're going to be doing every year. Because otherwise, you're gonna have to go out and get another loan like that.

And the people that are offering you that, once they've got you as their, person to to go to and and offer that loan to, they'll come back every year to clean that and charge you another 15 to $20,000 and put that where you can't see it. But you will feel it eventually.

And usually when they feel it is when they're most vulnerable, and and and therefore, really, really hard for me to support this approach to that problem. Not I'm willing to look at a lot of things, but this approach to it, I I just can't. I can't get behind. But thank you for your efforts though. I I'm a 100% behind the effort, but just not with this.

Anybody else with questions or comments? No. See none. You know, this is really hard, I know, for you. I know who you are, your values, what you stand for, and I probably wouldn't be even considering it if it wasn't for someone of your credibility.

So it means a lot that you're the one presenting this. I know you're working really, really hard. I met with the proponents of it trying to fix this. I know some amendments that you did were obviously specifically aimed at how do we make sure there's as many protections for, for the loan, recipients as as possible. I understand there's a couple just to mention amendments expanding reporting requirements for the improvements to require providers to explain outstanding complaints, a required hardship program that allows for removing the liens.

This is not where we want it to be. This is not the level of protections that we want it to be. I've been involved with a lot of similar types of programs. We had the whole battle with the payday loans. We had battles with, immigration service providers, and there's there's this group of people, bad people out there who will do anything to abuse to make a fast buck.

And that's what we're we're up against here. So I know all my friends in the, where, consumer protection, advocates are are here as well. We're always working together on these issues. But because of your commitment and who you are, I'm willing to take that that chance of supporting it. I know you have to continue to work hard even after this.

If this were to get all the way and get signed, you still have to work at it because we all have to face the people who are gonna come to us with these with these issues. So I will be supporting you you today. You if you wanna wrap up in closing remarks.

Well, thank you, madam chair, for those comments. It really means a lot to me, your your trust in me, and my commitment to to really sincerely address the legitimate concerns that Senator Siotto raised, and I think the opposition of race certainly understand the the bankers and, you know, credit unions have a have a different interest in this, and I certainly respect that. It's very interesting to be presenting this bill because this program started in Berkeley in 2007.

And I think one of the biggest problems is that for quite some time, there were very light requirements in statute and zero regulatory oversight. And I think the legislature rightfully in the last decade took steps including putting this under the Department of Financial Protection Innovation to make sure that there was some oversight.

And a series of laws that have been passed, you know, when call attention to SB 242 in 2017, which had certain requirements, regarding with there's a reported reported phone call that there have to be specific information on the terms of the agreement, prohibited kickbacks to contractors for steering consumers into a particular program, pace and also restricted PACE providers from disclosing to contractors the amount of funds the property and the owner eligible for, particularly to try to address contractor abuse.

You know, there are also other laws that have been passed to, allow for the right to cancel PACE funding, to extend laws regulating unfair methods of competition, unfair deceptive acts and practices. With regards to the home solicitation of senior citizens for home improvements funded by PACE, I was also made aware, in my conversation with the, consumer protection groups of legislation that Senator Min had proposed, just a few years ago, and we're gonna take a look at that. But you have my absolute commitment.

Aye, under no circumstances, wanna create a situation where people who are doing the right thing and are actually complying with the requirements of the state to do this hardening work and wanna get insured.

And I agree we need grants and we need to work with the department insurance to make sure that we are getting people insured if they're doing the work. And that's a separate issue, separate matter, but very related and tangential to this. But I don't want people that are doing the right thing, to to be fall victim to any sort of predatory actions or or deceptive practices that will result in them removing their home.

I'm very open to the suggestion that was raised by opposition, to look at notch, the, the mortgage the treasurer's tax collectors to look at the concept of how we remove liens, not just prospectively, but retroactively if a home is is burned down. I think that's the least we can do to provide relief for people.

But at the end of the day, the goal of this bill is to help prevent that from happening. So, we certainly respect the thoughtful discussion on this bill. I ask for your support to move this out with a commitment that will continue to work with opposition to address these very legitimate issues and to make sure that we have a program that's workable and that will protect consumers and protect our state from the risk of wildfire. I have a spec last for a night vote.

I'll I'll ask I'll call our opposition friends. So we have do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Cervantes.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Senator D'Orazzo?

Aye.

D'Orazzo, aye. Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Aye. Aye. Aye. Ashby?

Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? No.

Cervantes, no. Three two.

Code is 32 and will remain on call. We're now now with Senator Reyes, s p ten seventy five. Welcome. You may start when you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair. Members, thank you for this opportunity to present SB 1075, the clean air promise. I'd like to start by thanking the committee.

Go ahead. You may proceed.

I would like to start by thanking the committee and staff for their work on this bill. I am accepting the committee amendments. SB 1075 builds on the state's promise of clean air for all by ensuring that local governments analyze the potential air quality impact from local land use approvals of industrial or commercial uses.

It has been nearly a decade since the passage of AB 617, which as part of the cap and trade negotiations that took place that year, offered the promise of local emissions reductions in our most polluted communities. Despite the importance of this program, there has consistently been a fundamental disconnect between program goals and efforts to maximize emissions reductions in impacted communities.

Specifically, even when plans are identified in the SERP for implementation, there are no requirements for local governments to factor in the emissions reductions measures identified by state agencies, local air districts, and community members. S p ten seventy five fulfills the promise of AB 617 by ensuring more effective implementation of the statewide strategy to reduce emissions.

Here to testify and support are Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, and Phoebe Seton on behalf of the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability.

Thanks so much, Senator. Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee. Phoebe Seaton with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We are a community based advocacy organization based in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys.

We have worked on AB 617 policy development and implementation in both regions and at the state level. I recall with great clarity the night the Fresno SERP was negotiated. I was in Sacramento following negotiations from afar. I remember the details of the agreed upon SERP, but more than that, I remember the optimism that the SERP would mark a shift in the way planning and investment happened in South Fresno, among the most polluted corners of this state.

While the SERP has issued ushered in some benefits, it has not changed what matters most to Fresno residents, a better approach to land use in their neighborhoods that have spent decades being dumped on.

For instance, the city and county have failed to enter into an MOU that would have further transparency and decision making and coordination in the implementation of the CERT and various land use plans. The city has not adopted a truck routing plan to shift diesel trucks away from where people are living and where kids are playing. A health impact assessment was completed only to sit on a shelf accumulating dust instead of informing policy and regulatory action. More land is planned for industrial uses in the area.

More warehouses have popped up.

A freeway expansion is planned to cut through the neighborhoods, and the city is considering rezoning a mixed use areA Back to industrial. The promise of AB 617 for one of the most polluted places in the state has been betrayed by inconsistent land uses decisions and priorities. SB 1075 takes modest steps to coordinate the critical goals of SERPs with the short, medium, and long term plans for neighborhood level, city level, and county level development.

While we understand that land use is the province of local government, we also have seen the legislature. In fact, this very committee passed legislation that provides guidance and guardrails to local governments when the late legislature assesses that local governments are not doing enough to advance state goals.

Our experience in this experience of tens of thousands others is that local governments are not doing enough to address local pollution in the most polluted neighborhoods of California.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Katie Valenzuela. I represent the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. And for the purposes of this committee, I also served on the city council here in Sacramento alongside my colleague and now Senator, Senator Ashby. SB 1075 builds on the lessons we've learned over the last several years as we work to implement AB 617.

As the author said, AB 617 was a promise to the the state made to specific overburdened communities that we will do what we can to improve their air quality. However, despite hundreds of millions of state dollars and an untold number of volunteer hours, we are not nearly close enough to making that promise a reality and in some communities they are actually seeing their air quality get worse.

SB 1075 will make strategic and surgical changes to the law to help with implementation of AB 617. It also makes a modest change to ask local governments to simply consider air quality if they are making decision about a proposed commercial or industrial use in those specific communities. Something that can easily be incorporated into their existing staff review and committee or council approval process.

This will ensure not only that communities are aware of the potential impacts of these projects, but also that they get an opportunity in a public meeting to voice any concerns or ideas to decision makers. To be clear, this requirement would only apply to local governments considering an action in an identified AB 617 community, not statewide.

We have been in active conversation with stakeholders about this bill and are committed to continuing those conversations because we do believe that we all want the same thing, cleaner air in our most overburdened communities. I would also like to thank committee staff for working with us on these amendments. And with that, on behalf of CRPE and our broad coalition of stakeholders, I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone who wants to come forward and add yourselves as me too's to SB 1075? Please come forward. Your name and organization and your position.

Good morning, madam chair. Herman Barona, executive director of the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition. I'm here as a partner of the greater state, EJ organizations. We're in support of this bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Miss Christina Alvarez, also a member with Sacramento EJC, and we're also asking for support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Fatima Garcia. I am the president of the Labor Council for Latin American advancement, AFL CIO, and we strongly urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Jenna Roper on behalf of Central California Asthma Collaborative, Central California Environmental Justice Network, and SAHA Action in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice Advocacy and Support. Thanks.

Good morning. My name is Chelam Tubati. I'm the cochair AB 617 Baby Hunters Point Southeast San Francisco in support of the bill, and I request, Chamber of Commerce when they're opposing to do so without disparaging the communities. Thank you.

I'm Marvin Norman, environmental policy coordinator with CCAEJ, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and a member of the San Bernardino Muscogee AB 617 community in response report. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League and Strong Support. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else in support of SB 1075? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to SB 1075? No.

Do we have two two witnesses? Okay. You may start.

Chair DeRazzo and committee members, John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. We oppose SB 1075 as a cost driver. Now we've reviews reviewed the proposed amendments that are being taken, and our first impression is that the core problem of the bill still remains. SB 1075 actually backfires on the communities that it's seeking to help. The bill makes it significantly harder to invest and build in disadvantaged communities.

That means fewer jobs for workers and less tax revenue for local governments to fund essential services. SB 1075 works by requiring local governments to conduct a new analysis tied to SERPs and local SERPs developed by unelected community steering committees before approving certain commercial and industrial projects. A SERPs and L SERPs are broad evolving policy documents.

There's no clear standard for what level of analysis would be sufficient as Bill creates a new set of findings and analytical requirements that must be defended for every single project. These findings create a new litigation hook, even for projects eligible for ministerial approval or fully compliant with CEQA and local zoning.

That increases the likelihood of delay in litigation that makes projects more expensive and harder to finance. Now investment depends on predictability, and this bill reduces it. When developers cannot clearly understand approval standards, timelines, or risk exposure, projects do not move forward. Capital shifts to jurisdictions where the rules are clear and more stable. This is a formula for banana.

Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone, and that's what drives the problem. Over time, SB 1075 risks reinforcing the disparities that the bills intended to address. It applies exclusively in certain disadvantaged communities. Those communities need sustained investment for jobs, infrastructure, and the economic activity that supports long term improvement. By increasing permitting complexity and uncertainty in those areas, SB 1075 makes them less competitive for new projects.

Fewer jobs, reduced prosperity, and a shrinking local tax base. Now when you think about the types of projects that could be prohibited under the or that could face additional challenges under this, think about somebody who's trying to decarbonize their operations. Right? So they're electrifying a portion of what they're doing, but they're still emitting. Right?

Because they still are relying on some level of combustion. If the local SERP says, no. No. No. No.

No combustion. We're reducing we're preventing that local community from achieving the benefit of reduced emissions. Right? You know, think about the battery storage that's required for a modern grid infrastructure. Right?

Recently, there Harabedian an increased environmental opposition to the the siding of these battery storage projects. That's a serious problem for the grid that we want to build. Carbon capture and sequestration, which is necessary to retrieve our our climate ambition, circ would prevent that type of project from being executed. These aren't legacy projects. They're the next generation of infrastructure and industrial activity.

So Thank you. You know, fundamentally, we see this as a problem for the communities that it's trying to help. And for that reason, we oppose SB 1075. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

Good morning. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties. On behalf of CSAC and the League of California Cities, we wanna thank the author and the committee staff for working diligently on the committee amendments. We had deep deep concerns about the current bill in print that would prescribe land use and planning by requiring compliance with community emission reduction plans that would be approved by CARB or local community emission reduction plans that don't have any local, regional, or state involvement.

The bill would have created a very broad and ongoing obligation for local governments to align land use decisions to single indicator of air quality for all local planning decisions, which undermine CEQA by prioritizing air quality above all other indicators.

Lastly, we were very concerned that local government can decisions could be invalidated by the attorney general through the citizen petition process proposed by the bill. We remain opposed unless amended until the set of amendments come forward into print. Our primary concerns that remain include requiring cities and counties to analyze air quality impacts when we already analyze air quality impacts for sequel projects. In addition, such large industrial and commercial projects are already required to get air quality permits as well in the existing framework.

These requirements feel duplicative and could tie the hand of local governments approving these project approving these types of projects.

We look forward to reviewing the amended version of the bill and contributing to the discussions with the author. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1075? Please identify yourself and your position.

Good morning. Tracey Ryan with the California State Association of Counties.

Good morning. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association Would also align our comments with CSAC, but do you think the amendments are going in the right direction from a planning perspective and really appreciate all the work on this? Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Adam Regale on behalf of NAAP SoCal in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jenny Aguilar on behalf of NAOKE California in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jasmine Vai on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. Position. We appreciate the proposed amendments and look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

Good morning. Martin Rudasovich on behalf of the city of Fresno. Opposed unless amended, but we'll be reviewing the amendments in, shortly. Thank you.

Good morning. Lisa Tanaka from South Coast Air Quality Management District, and we don't have an official position at this moment. And we appreciate the opportunity to work with the Senator and all of the stakeholders to resolve any issues with the bill. We really want to share the same goal for clean air and protecting community health. Thank you.

Madam chair, members of the committee, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association, AEM, and a number of agricultural commodities in opposition. Thank you.

Madam chair Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's business roundtable in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, ma'am chair. Chris Schumott on behalf of the California Trucking Association and Supply Chain Federation in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Escobello with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam chair, members, Joe Cruz on behalf of the California State Council of Labor is respectfully opposed, but we'll continue working with the author to find a safe place to land. So thank you.

Good to hear that.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Skyler Wanacon, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kevin Scheip with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, chair. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council in opposition, but look forward to working with the author to try and improve the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, members, Bill Biller on behalf of the Association of Western Employers, also in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1075? Seeing none, come to the dais. Questions? Comments?

None? Senator Sejardo?

Thank you very much. So this is one of the banes of being up here is we do want clean air. We want clean air bad. We wanna reduce pollution. But in doing so, sometimes we put up so many regulations that we get very little bang for our buck.

We don't reduce pollution much, but we spend a lot of money. In this particular case, I think there was an article a couple of years ago about we spent it was a CALmatters article and we spent like 1,100,000,000 addressing this and yet we have no discernible change in our pollution. The other issue I see with this is one more obstacle. And it's not really an obstacle because CEQA already covers air quality.

I've looked at a gazillion CEQA documents and CEQA studies on a lot of different types of projects.

And, and they're already there for us to consider. But what happens mostly is they consider when you consider jobs, when you consider, you know, the, the good and the bad of a project. The project usually wins as being a good for whatever community it is. And when you're talking about regional air condition our regional air pollution, and and I can use our region since we both know our region really well. And, you're actually more up into the pocket of the basin.

And, and unfortunately, a lot of our pollution, we have absolutely no control over because the prevailing winds, blow everything from the coast, into our region, and then it hugs the mountains and and compacts there. So we're not even contributing a lot of what we have to breathe in there and we have no control over it at all.

But I think doing this is going to create yet another barrier to the jobs that we need to keep people from driving so far and come attributing more to that air pollution. And those are the trade offs. We're looking at the balance of, you know, hey, this project may do this, but it's also keeping air pollution off on the other side.

And that's what sequence for. That's what the you know, we require that. Now, one question I do have, is this for commercial and residential?

Commercial and industrial.

Okay. So it's just commercial and industrial. And What are

the amendments taken?

Right. So so what that leads with is, you know, essentially, every single study that's done is gonna be challengeable in court, and create another another obstacle to building the job part of of balancing a region. If we have 63% of our our population commuting, whether and and 70% of those commuters are are in vehicles that produce pollution. Even if they're electric, they've got the tires on the road, they're producing pollution.

We're kind of fighting against ourselves, and ultimately we wind up with no jobs, a lot of people, no money for those people and and we start losing population, which we're already doing.

So I I feel like we have enough of these regulations in place and in fact, we've we've tried to reduce them, especially when it relates to housing, and more more than just housing, but really focused on high density housing. And and I fear if we add more and more to that, we are going to dig ourselves deeper in this hole of too many obstacles, not enough jobs. And if there's no jobs, then there's probably no need for the housing because people won't live here anymore.

And, and we see a lot of that already. So that's the problems I have with this bill is I think it's redundant, in our in our air studies part of it and just opens it up to more lawsuits, more delays, everything that the legislature has talked about since I've been up here about, oh my gosh, you know, what have we done?

And, and we can't do more, especially when we see studies that show we've spent a billion dollars and we're getting no result. So thank you very much, for your efforts in this. I I get it. I don't like bringing breathing bad air either. But we have to we have to figure out the balance of of having houses and and people and jobs, and this doesn't do it for me. Thanks.

Thank you, Senator Artaud. Senator Choi?

Thank you, chair. One of the frustrations for me serving in in this local government committee is that I face many, many bills being proposed that will take over all the roles of the local government, county, and cities. Having served in the local government for twelve years. These type of the functions cities, counties should perform. I all support the clean air effort and the reduction of emissions from the big projects.

We have made tremendous improvements in cleaning the air because when I came for the first time from Pittsburgh by driving to LA, I was so shocked. I couldn't see the sky and so full of a smoke. How can I survive breathing this dirty air? I was so concerned. And over the years, now we see blue skies.

And so the our effort has worked, definitely, and we need to continuously work. And as a result, we have so many different agencies that control that emission control and the air quality improvement projects, and especially commercial entities and the industries will will have to be regulated by this bill. It's already being done by controlled by layers of regulations, regulatory agencies already in place, such as for such a large project. Typically, environmental impact studies are required, and that's one thing.

And then also community hearing, the community members will have an input for input into that.

So people directly get involved in that kind of a big project, so that will impact their community and or environment. And CEQA is the governing overarching agency that we have to comply with. And in Southern California, we have Southern California AQMD, Air Quality Management District, and they are very, very tough in that controlling the emissions. So these are all locally already doing their jobs rather than creating another layer that will cause eventual cost hike for the projects and the delays of the projects.

So this is redundant, unnecessary, and then also in the spirit of local agencies' authority, California constitution vests cities and the counties with the police power to be exercised by locally elected officials who are directly accountable to their communities.

Within the framework established by state law, these officials are entrusted to make land use decisions that we are talking about based on a balanced consideration of our local needs, economic development, housing production, environmental impacts, public health, and community character. This system reflects a longstanding principle. Those closest to the impact of the land use decisions are best positioned to make them. SB 1075 fundamentally disrupts that framework. For these reasons, I don't think I can support this bill even though it was well intended.

Senator Areguin?

Thank you. Well, I wanna thank the committee for its work on this bill. I did have concerns similar to what Senator Choi expressed, delegating land use authority to an air resources board, whether it's a local AQMD or the state. Number of us here have served local government. We, you know, we are elected by the people.

You don't elect an air board. They're appointed. So I appreciate the amendment that was made to change it to consideration of the means to reduce negative air quality impacts. Certainly, we need to align the work that's being done with AB 617 communities. I have two in my district, one in Richmond and one in in West Oakland, where there have been significant environmental justice issues and harm inflicted on those frontline communities by industry.

And a lot of thoughtful work is done to developing those AB 617 plans, working with industry as well as with communities that are impacted. But we do need to make sure that as general plans are being developed or, you know, projects are being considered that there is consideration. I think that's certainly, I think that's certainly a worthy, a worthy thing to happen.

And so I appreciate the amendments that really kind of respect local authority, but also make sure that this is a process a meaningful process that can be folded into existing land use review. And I'll move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I just I just wanna say I I also appreciate working with the with the author and addressing some of these things. For example, one part of the amendments is to consolidate the analysis with CEQA so that there's not duplication to be able to address some of the some of the criticisms. If it's already covered by CEQA, then there's no need for another analysis.

This is about the worst air in the in the state. This is about those areas, and this is about giving more serious consideration to what happens in those communities there. They will be identified, and then those communities have the opportunity to do what you know, take take those issues up. I know in in my district, if this had been in place and in law, maybe there wouldn't have been five freeways all crossing each other in Boyle Heights in East LA.

So, you know, we're we're talking about addressing very, very specific areas that are hardest hit, that are suffering the most, it's and especially with with industry.

So I really appreciate your work, and I know that you will continue to work with, anyone who has we all care about these jobs. And and it really bothers me when jobs the creation of jobs is put up against, you know, having cleaner air or having a cleaner community. It shouldn't be one or the other, and we're trying to do both at the same time. And I appreciate any effort that brings the two together instead of having to choose between one or the other.

That's just not right, and that's not what I believe in.

I I know yourself as well. So with that, you can respond, but use your ending remarks.

Thank you. And I do I through the chair, I would like to respond. When we talk about putting this layer, it is for those AB 617 communities. These are communities that were selected because they have the worst air quality. So, if they have the worst air quality and the community and the, and government agencies have come together to put together these plans, we should do something with the plans.

Not just say, okay, there's a plan, put it on the shelf, and thank you for community for coming and putting it together.

No. We need to do something to implement them. We have changed the language to say they should be considered, and once they are considered, if the local government says we considered it and the what is being proposed is too essential to this community, we're going to move forward with it, at least it was considered and the community feels that their volunteer hours, because they spent so many volunteer hours coming together because they think they're really being heard when they put together this plan.

This plan is being put together to say, here are all of our concerns, and this is what we need to reduce emissions in our community. We're not saying you can't approve anything unless it goes to this plan.

We're saying consider it and then tell us you considered it and this is still an essential project that needs to go through. I agree that the cities and counties have this duty to to do what is best for the community. Doesn't always happen because they decide that for business reasons, this particular project needs to be approved. We talk about CEQA. CEQA should be stopping many of these programs.

If it were if CEQA were followed in my community, we wouldn't have 4,000,000 square feet of warehouses.

It wouldn't have happened. But CEQA is very ease they very easily can override a CEQA request. If CEQA says you shouldn't build here because this is building upon building upon building on and creating worse and worse and worse air quality. If SQL were followed when it said that, I wouldn't have all those warehouses, but I do. But I do.

And when we talk about the fact that we used to look at the air and we couldn't see through, and now we can see the mountains, that is true, and I'm grateful for that. The problem is we have diesel particulate matter that is so small, and it gets into the lungs, especially of the children and the seniors. Those are the most affected by this diesel particulate matter. It's affecting us. It's affecting us.

It's just like asbestos. You can't see the asbestos as clearly as you would have expected, but it gets into the lungs and you know what's going to happen to your life expectancy. Now, I heard two different things. I heard we have spent over $1,000,000,000 and nothing has happened. And then I heard our efforts have worked.

It's one or the other. And the truth is it may have worked in some communities, but there are some communities where it has not worked. And that is because those are the worst affected communities. Those are the AB 617 communities where we had to put plans together, but the plans are not being followed. I also heard that it makes it harder to invest in these communities, and there's not there's no money for those people.

I'm sorry. Our communities need those investments. And just because for years and years, we've been overburdened, and we've had all of these, everything that can go wrong in our communities has gone wrong, and our communities are suffering the most. We have more asthma. We have more the American Lung Association has classified our area as the worst area.

That's the American Lung Association. Something has gone wrong, and we have an obligation to do something further to help our communities. They are the most overburdened communities. The bill as amended does not say you have to follow these SERPs. It says you must consider them when you're talking about air quality.

So as local governments, it's figuring out what do you do, and how do you do it. You consider them. And then you say I considered it and here's the community deserves to know that you considered it as local electeds. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Senator D'Arazzo? Aye. D'Arazzo, aye. Choi?

No. Choi, no. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye.

Ashby. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird Sejarto?

No. Sejarto, no. Three two.

The vote is three to two and remain on call. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

The vote is three to two and remain on call. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Okay. We will move on with Senator Weber Pearson.

Good morning, Senator.

Good morning.

We'll just wait a little bit to settle down. Okay. Senator, welcome to start.

Thank you, chair. Good morning, members. I'm here to present SB 958. SB 958 provides a pathway to allow the city Of San Diego's Midway Rising redevelopment project to proceed following years of extensive planning, environmental review, and two voter approved measures. The project replaces an aging obsolete arena and expansive surface parking lots with climate resilient transit oriented community that prioritizing houses housing production, active transportation, and high quality public spaces while maintaining the site's long standing role as a regional entertainment destination.

More specifically, the project will create at least 4,250 residential units, of which at least 2,000 will be affordable, a modern 16,000 seat multipurpose sports and entertainment venue that will achieve LEED gold certification for new construction within one year following completion, and over 14 acres of parks and public space, and a mixed use entertainment, arts, and cultural district.

This bill was recently amended using committee and community feedback, and so this bill will shift away from a full CEQA exemption and instead clarify CEQA law so that impacts related to increased building height are properly accounted for within the project's future environmental impact report. The bill amended will simply provide prospective guidance to the courts. SB 958 helps ensure that our environmental review process remains focused, consistent, and predictable so that agencies, courts, and stakeholders are all operating with a shared understanding of the law.

Joining me today is Moira Topp representing the city of San Diego.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, madam chair and members. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego, Mayor Todd Gloria, sponsor of the measure. The Midway Rising Project truly is a once in a generation project. It's on city owned land.

We've actually used the surplus land act to facilitate this project, and we're very proud of the fact that as the Senator mentioned, over 4,000, homes will be built, 2,000 of which will be affordable. That's well above the 25% requirement in surplus land act. So we're very proud of this. We'll probably be the largest affordable housing project on the West Coast. And as the Senator also mentioned, the people of San Diego have voted affirmatively twice in the last eight years for this project.

We've been mired in litigation, and it's time to get shovels in the ground. So we appreciate all of the effort that your staff and you have put into this bill to make it more workable, and we appreciate the time spent on it. So on behalf of mayor Todd Gloria and the many residents of San Diego and who will be San Diego who will be able to call Midway Rising home. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to see are there any others in support of SB 958? Please come forward. Seeing no one, is there anybody in opposition to SB 958? K.

Seeing none. Senator Sciardo, did you say something? Move the bill? Okay. Any comments or questions?

Yeah. I'll be happy to support this bill because it is addressing the sorting house housing issues, affordable housing issues, at the same time, addressing the air quality issues as well. So that's good.

Thank you. Thank you. I know everyone you're you've worked hard. You everybody's worked hard, done everything you're supposed to do, and it just keeps things keep getting in the way. People putting things in the way.

So I appreciate because of that. I'd be glad to support the bill today. Any wrap wrap up closing remarks?

Yes. I wanna thank really thank the staff on this committee for working really hard, on thiS Bill and coordinating with, the EQ staff and and my staff and staff of City of San Diego. It'S Been truly a collaborative effort. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 958.

Thank you. Assistant, call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Senator Hesteraso.

D'Orazzo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Adeyin Ashby Cervantes Laird Searto? Aye. Searto, aye. Three zero.

Aye.

Vote is three zero. We remain on call. Thank you.

Me. Me. Oh, no.

Before my own committee. Oh, no. Okay.

Oh, do you oh,

they asked me to come. I missed across. I can to Misty. Oh, okay. Okay.

They just rested me out of EQ to come over here.

Okay. Senator Allen, will be presenting s P1182.

Yep. Good morning.

Good morning, madam chair. Thank you to you and thank you to the community staff for your work with us on this bill. This bill recognizes that a lot of the climate risks we're facing, a lot of the fire risk we're facing, are not just an environmental issue, but, but also something that's impacting housing and affordability. We're seeing families facing skyrocketing insurance premiums. They're losing coverage altogether.

That's putting homeownership and rental stability increasingly out of reach. And we know, of course, that when insurance becomes unavailable or unaffordable, the impacts ripple outward. We have higher housing costs, reduced property values, increased risk of displacement, especially for low and moderate income households.

And, and what's, of course, happening in higher risk areas, a lot of these communities' folks are increasingly turning to the California Fair Plan, which is a backstop that ultimately spreads risk across all policy holders, meaning the public is subsidizing development in the highest risk areas, and that's being borne by folks all over the state.

So, real affordable insurance availability offers a critical, real-time signal of risk, and when coverage becomes unavailable or unaffordable, it reflects a market determination that the level of risk and danger may be too high to ensure.

Ignoring that signal can leave communities exposed, not only to physical harm, but to housing instability, displacement, and economic loss, and yet, current safety elements don't account for these economic realities. They focus more narrowly on physical hazards without addressing how those risks translate into insurance premiums and housing and security.

Just to give you a sense, you know, between 1990 and 2020, something like half of the homes built in California broke ground in wild urban interface, even though this area makes up less than 7% of all the land in the state. At the urban fringes, the tradeoff between housing and fire risk can be a profoundly difficult one to negotiate.

So, this bill is a simple bill now, after the amendments, but it, but it ensures that local governments consider insurance availability as part of their safety planning, helping to identify communities where climate impacts are already driving up costs and limiting access to housing.

The idea being that, you know, we should be very circumspect before green lighting significant new development in the very high fire zone that's not insurable. All of us end up being impacted in many ways by that. To support local governments in this task, the bill requires the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to update their fire hazard planning technical advice series with the sources of information that they can use to meet this requirement.

So, better align land use decisions with long-term affordability and sustainability goals while guiding investments in wildfire mitigation, climate resilience, and community protection. Such investments may, in turn, improve insurance availability and reduce our crippling reliance on the fair plan that has become so oversubscribed and undercapitalized, it's really creating ripple effects across the board.

So, by integrating environmental risk with housing and affordability considerations, the, the—this bill helps us plan more responsibly, protecting not just where we build, but where—whether—people can afford to live there safely. And here with me to, to testify in support of the bill, we have Matt Baker with the Planning Conservation League.

...Good morning, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League, in, in support of the, the bill, and, you know, we thank the Senator for his continued efforts to, to try to ensure that our, our development and, and existing communities are made insurable and ultimately, more safe in in California.

And, and, you know, we believe that, you know, in insurability, you know, begs the question of not just, like, home hardening considerations and how we build, but also where we build and if we have the correct infrastructure adequate infrastructure in place for evacuation. Holistic considerations that we think are, are appropriate to be considered in the general plan safety element, including the, the specific question of insurability and how that relates to these other planning decisions and considerations and mitigations that are taken at the plan level.

You know, I, I think the committee has clear questions and others will about whether this is exactly the right solution or mechanism to do this. But we, again, thank the author for his continued commitment and diligence in trying to find and working with the many stakeholders involved in these conversations to try to find the right solutions. And we strongly urge an aye vote so we can continue that conversation.

Okay. Any other support, major witness? Otherwise, me too people in support of the bill.

David Bullock, on behalf of the users of insurance and the SFV Alliance, which is all of us, we are in support. Thank you.

Okay. Any opponent witness? No? Okay. Then, we'll bring it back to the committee members.

Couple of questions.

Does this apply to, like, a single family residential, or does this apply to bigger developments? Would it—does this apply to everybody?

It's, it's, it's if you have a piece of land and you want to build your house on it.

It's, it's basically a direction to local governments to incorporate and well, to consider insurance availability as part of their safety planning. So, it's—in the end of the day, we just wanna make sure that that's part of the mix when, when cities and counties are doing their planning.

Because it it seems to me that I mean, if you can't get insurance, you can't—you're not gonna have a, a product to build. And, and it's hard to guess.

For the most part.

What insurance is gonna be when your project is done. Right?

And that's why, that's why the, the bill is not too prescriptive.

Right. It, it just seems this—I think the, the issue you're talking about is addressed in several different ways, and I don't know that this is the right approach. Number one, yeah, insurance needs to be addressed. We—our insurance system the way it is, is broken.

They've already done a study that shows us some options. I've yet to be consulted or talked about even though I was one of the people pushing for us to rethink how we're doing insurance in California. So, yes, we need to reform insurance so that we can build houses. Number two, whenever their development goes through any, whether it's a county, the city, whatever, it has to go through a process.

And that process includes consideration for where they are, where they're building, what kind of infrastructure is needed to support that.

Yeah.

And and that includes the safety element of, of the thing. So, the, the state has done, ember maps, fire ember maps that show areas that are particularly prone. And that's something that, again, the cities should be taking into consideration. I think they have to.

When a project goes in, whether it's one house or 150 homes, they're gonna have to provide the, the buffer areas, to protect those homes better, that will ultimately give them insurance. The ability to reduce the risk enough to create insurance. Yeah. But they don't know what that is if, if you're doing this way in front because insurance is gonna look at the, not the project, because you're doing this ahead of time.

This is at the inception.

We need to be doing it every stage of the planning process. And I do think that in the, in the long run, and that, you know, as you, you mentioned in the report, I, I think there's a lot of work that's gonna have to happen, both at the Legislature and the Department of Insurance as well.

We've gotta pursue a strategy that engages the insurance industry on the front end as well, with cities, and I've actually got a bill on this topic, to create collaboratives on this, that that's gonna be really focused on making sure that, that we're that we're planning in a way that, that, that addresses the risk reduction needs, not just from a fire safety standard, but also from an insurance standard.

So, when you're looking, when you're talking about insurance, you're talking about a business product. Right? And, and you can't force a business to give a product.

That's right.

And you can't force them to keep a product. And so, the, the fallback to that is you have to create the environment where it's okay for them to have a product.

Exactly right.

Because if we do, if we don't do that and, and that's all—that's addressed in the building procedure or the, the planning and the Planning Department of the city.

To some extent.

And, and, and so, I, I just, I, I get what your concept is. I don't think that the approach, especially given these current state of our insurance, I don't think, I, I don't think the insurance companies can make that kind of a commitment to any project.

And we're not asking for them to make a direct commitment in the bill. We're, we're asking the cities to incorporate and consider insurance availability as they're thinking about planning so that they're engaging in the conversations at the front end with no, and the—but the bill does not require direct commitments or mandates.

I, I would think that'd be the something that the person that's going to build, that's going to risk all their money to build, is doing, before they even think about building anything is, is there insurance available in this area? If there isn't, we're not going. And there's no guarantee that once they're done, that insurance company that they've gotten the insurance from, it's still gonna—they may decide, you know what, we've changed our mind, we're not doing that area anymore.

So, it's a—I think it's, it's a risk that the builder or the, the developer is taking to even consider doing something in that area.

And I don't think it can be alleviated by a community going through a process like this.

But my point is, it's not just a risk that the developer is taking. It's a risk the community is taking. Because at the end of the day, the fire risk associated with new construction that's not built to the highest fire safety standards actually puts the entire community at risk, both financially and physically.

But they have to build to the highest fire standards already because that's what the code, the new code.

No, there are higher standards that are—that go beyond where the codes are. So, if you go down to Escondido, I think, you know, not too far from where you are, there's a whole community that's been built to the IBHS standards and you know, that, that go beyond the code, in the very high fire zone, fully insured, because they're so serious about, about risk reduction in this area.

Alright. Thank you.

Yeah. I have a question.

No. It's fine. I mean, listen, I, I, I, I don't think we disagree.

Yeah. Yeah.

I would like to have some clarification. Your bill says to require cities and the counties beginning 2028 to incorporate information regarding the availability of insurance for existing and planned development areas, especially in high fire hazard zones. So, existing homes already have initial home issuances, most of them, right? But why, existing homes, you'll have to require—no, this is a requiring for the cities to incorporate the information.

So, I'm not sure what this bill will do, just asking the cities to incorporate that information. Okay. My, my village in the city of Irvine, we, we have a village concept though. The southern village is something—40 different villages.

This village is a higher fire risk zone, so, therefore, insurance would not be available. My home is very nearby the low mountain and the brush areas, and some companies refuse to write insurance, but I acquired my insurance. So, existing homes do have insurance already, but why this new bill is including that existing homes as well, as well as the new project. New project, it does make sense.

However, if you ask local governments, the cities and the counties, to consider, to make it incorporate that kind of information, does that mean that the city has the authority to refuse the new project, if that particular area is a too high fire risk zone and insurance may not be available?

And who's gonna do the work of finding—serving the insurance companies, say, hey, we're gonna build this multi-unit homes in this particular area. Will you ensure if the home is built? Who's gonna do that work? City or, or developer?

I think both need to do the work because because, you know, unfortunately, unfortunately, Senator, a lot of, you, you would think—one of the one of the real wake up calls that we got in our community when, when our community burned was how few people had had full proper insurance, how under insured so many people—how uninsured so many people were, including in, in an existing community with lots and lot existing homes. So, that's one problem.

At the end of the day, what we're asking communities to do with this bill is simply make sure that we're considering the insurance implications as they're engaging in planning and, and safety and risk mitigation. That, that that insurance availability has become a major, broad-based challenge for us financially and infrastructurally. And so, I, I do, I mean, I think both the developers and the homeowners, and the cities, need to be thinking about it.

And, and, you know, again, the bill's pretty narrow from where we'd originally proposed. We're just asking for consideration of insurance issues as, as they're thinking about planning, just in the way we ask for them to think about ingress and ingress and safety issues and a whole slew of different factors that need to be brought into the planning process.

So, your bill simply requires cities and counties to insurance availability information available.

Exactly.

But it would not impact their permission to build?

No, it would not. I will say that I think, as a matter of public policy, we should not be greenlighting, you know, significant new construction in the very high fire zones that are not insurable, because, you know, to, to the extent that they're not being built to, since fire safety standards is where the insurance industry feels comfortable insuring the areas, and I just think that we need to get smarter about this issue. That's why I'm wading into this issue.

But this bill is pretty modest. I mean, it, it basically talks about information and consideration.

Burden in the insurance availability survey is responsibility of the city. How many, how many insurance companies do they have to call and find out whether they will insure or not?

We don't delineate a, kind of a—we're not, we're not too prescriptive.

We just want them to incorporate insurance-related issues into their planning, because what we're finding, Senator, is that insurance availability is becoming you know, this is happening in all of our districts, you know, because we're we all have fire zones, where insurance availability is really starting to become a, a, a real kind of planning problem, and yet our, you know, our code that focuses on safety and other factors, is just not up to date enough.

We're seeing so many people getting dropped. We're seeing so many people getting pushed onto the Fair Plan. We're all now having to bail out the Fair Plan collectively, and that's becoming a, a kind of systemic problem. You know, I'm, I'm not trying to claim that this bill is gonna solve that problem, but I do think it's a, it's a, it's a step in the right direction of asking everybody involved in planning to start considering these factors as we're thinking about the way we grow.

Yeah. Fair Plan is—Fail Plan is not the answer. I know it is not the answer. However, that is a last resort when no commercial insurance company will take off.

Exactly. It's tripled in size over the last four years.

I, I, I know. So, eventually, one form of another, good, a good insurance plan, or not so good plan, eventually, people will find some ways to find the insurance covered. But I, I, I know making that insurance available for new homes, that's, I think, a very big concern for home builders and the buyers. However, given that the city—burden on the city—I'm not sure whether—how much time they will have to spend to do this job and whether state will reimburse.

Usually, our bills don't reimburse any expenses incurred on a local basis, so I'm not sure about this bill.

It's, it's my understanding, the author, is that the Office of Climate and Innovation is the source that will be tapped

Exactly.

Because they already prepare technical advice on fire hazard planning. They already—they already prepare that. So, it's a state, state agency, and they will provide that information to the local government. So, it's not up to local government to just kindly look around and see where is this from.

There's a state agency that does that kind of planning on fire hazard and will be available for local government.

Yeah. I, I, I, I know fire department will, will assess the low-risk, regular area or high-risk fire zones, but that doesn't mean they will also survey whether insurance company will insure that property or not. They don't touch upon insurance as far as I know.

But I was referring to the Office of Climate and Innovation, not the fire agencies.

Yeah. The, these local governments are going through this planning process anyway. What the bill—that bill tasks the, the state to provide information to the cities to assist them in incorporating insurance availability factors into their planning process.

Thank you. Okay. Any more questions or comments? Wrap up?

No. I appreciate the discussion. I mean, I, you know, look, we're, we're, we're all grappling with, with this massive problem with regards to insurance availability, and of course, it's all it is wrapped up to some extent in the way we build and making sure that our communities are more are more hardened. But there's no requirement that the cities have to call insurers. This is about making sure that the state is providing and working with the cities to incorporate insurance availability to the planning.

It's a very modest bill, quite frankly, but I, I think it's a, it's a, it's a modest but important step in the right direction. That's, that's...

Alright. Thank you very much. And we'll ask the assistant. Oh. Oh.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Caballero is here.

Morning, Senator Caballero. We have SB1116. Okay. Good morning. You may proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to present SB1116, which is a follow-up to a bill I did last year, actually a couple years ago. It's the starter home revitalization act, which creates a streamlined ministerial pathway to build small scale housing projects up to 10 units on infill sites.

This really is one of the areas that I've spent some time and energy on because we have a lot of infill sites and the ability to actually build smaller units on those sites becomes really critically important. And the ability to do it in a streamlined ministerial way will make them more inexpensive as well or cheaper to build.

First, I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their time working on this issue and I will accept the Committee amendments to address comment 2 of the analysis which will ensure local government standards are retained while providing greater flexibility to meet the required density in the bill. And I look forward to continued partnership with the committee if the bill moves forward today. Since SB684 enactment, we've seen strong interest but also clear implementation challenges that are limiting its full potential.

And the challenges come from cities that just don't like it and they don't wanna build, so we wanna have clarity about exactly how it operates. SB1116 reflects 2 years of real world data and feedback from local governments, planners, builders and housing advocates.

So we know that California continues to face a severe housing shortage, particularly for entry level homeownership opportunities. While SB684 created the framework, differences in how the law was interpreted has created implementation challenges. What SB1116 does is make several important changes. 1, it clarifies development standards such as height, setback, and density to prevent local rules from reducing allowable housing. It reinforced 2, it reinforces ministerial approval and clear timelines to provide certainty for the applicants.

3, it strengthens state oversight and accountability for local compliance. 4, it updates the subdivision standards to allow for more flexibility for small small development. 5, it addresses private restrictions including HOA and deed provisions that can block housing. And finally, it improves reporting to better track outcomes and production. Taken together, these changes are designed to remove barriers, provide clarity, and ensure the law produces the housing it was intended to deliver.

SB1116 ensures that the promise of SB684 is fully realized. It removes barriers, provides clarity, strengthens accountability so we can deliver small scale homeownership opportunities across California. With me today to testify and support and help answer any questions is Mac Doubler on behalf of California YIMBY and Donovan Adesaro on behalf of Bill De Casa.

Who wants to start?

Sure. Chair and Members, thank you. My name is Donovan Adecciro. I'm head of development at Build Casa. I'm a small mission driven infill developer building starter homes across California.

I'm here to ask for your support for SB1116. First, the good news. SB684 and 1123 are making a real impact. We recently secured the first SB684 approval in San Diego, and that project is on track to be completed, later this year and is likely gonna be the first SB684 project completed in the state. Those units will be a sale price of 650,000, which is actually 40% below, the median single family price for San Diego.

Also, we have the first six eighty four application in Richmond, and we're actively working with clients throughout Los Angeles and Orange County. The Start of Home Revitalization Act is doing what the legislature designed it to do, and the data is clear. Allowing smaller lot smaller lots directly reduces housing prices and expands access to homeownership. Despite this progress, we've had to walk away from multiple projects, for the reasons that SB1116 will fix if passed. First, the deed restrictions.

These covenants were written 80, 100, 120 years ago in a completely different era of housing policy. Many of them contain racial covenants that wouldn't have allowed someone like me to even own a home in the first place. They also contain provisions like a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size that make a modern starter home subdivision mathematically impossible. The legislature said these projects can be built, and yet century old private restrictions are saying they can't. 1116 resolves that while preserving reasonable HOA protections.

Second, the minimum density. Current law forces us to hit two thirds of a site's maximum zone density even when the math does not pencil on a small irregular infill lot. That single requirement has killed otherwise viable projects, and SP eleven sixteen replaces it with a sensible ceiling instead of an impossible four. For a small developer, certainty is key. When we can underwrite the project with confidence, the projects will move forward.

1116 is the tune up to start a home revitalization act needs, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Perfect timing. Good. Yes. Max?

Yes. Hello. Good morning, Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a licensed planner and policy analyst at California YNB.

So California has one of the lowest homeownership rates in the country at about 55%. We're 10 points behind the national average And the legislature took a major step towards fixing this with SB684, then expanded that with SB1123. However, challenges still remain, and SB1116 addresses the remaining barriers to these projects that we can get homeownership, more attainable for more Californians.

And it does so by overriding outdated deed restrictions while preserving HOA communities' ability to control development in their borders, replacing complex and often unworkable minimum densities with a clear threshold, adding basic reporting and state oversight requirements, creating a shot clock for final maps, and, oh sorry, simplifying and standardizing some zoning, and clarifying the definition of vacant homes.

We believe that these challenge these changes will unlock less expensive new homes for ownership throughout the state, expanding access to the California dream and giving families the opportunity to build generational wealth.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move on to those who support SB1116 with Me Too's, your name and organization, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Sosan Madanat at W Strategies here on behalf of a number of organizations in support. The East Bay Leadership Council, North Bay Leadership Council, Visionary Home Builders, Montebello Housing Development Corporation, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Unidos US as a cosponsor, and Power California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sean Tepekian on behalf of Elevate California in support.

Thank you. Bob Naylor on behalf of Fieldstead. That's Howard Amundson Junior in support.

Good morning, madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles is a proud cosponsor, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Spur in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Aguilar, proud Bill Cosponsor with Casita Coalition and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone here in opposition to SB1116? No one in opposition? Okay. Okay.

Great. Questions or comments from the dais? Senator Sayarto?

Thank you.

Design standards, are they out the window with this rule? No. So you still have to comply with design standards for a community. They're not ministerial.

So it allows local governments to apply design standards as long as they allow for the designated floor area.

But, like, yeah, they still have their design standards.

Okay.

Okay. Common interest development, so you're talking about gated communities or HOAs?

Yes. So the goal here was to thread the needle between, like, dealing with these old deed restrictions that are, like, maybe 80 or a 100 years old, but letting HOA communities where people have actively decided to opt into this thing to, like, continue to have control over development in their neighborhoods. So it deals with deed restrictions, but not HOA communities. Does that make sense?

Yeah. A little bit. Alright. Thank you.

Any new cost no? Motion is made by Senator Choi. I have no comments. I'll be glad to support you today. Oh, closing. Sorry.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the questions and the comments. I had an opportunity to go to the city of Campbell in Santa Clara County and to see the first the groundbreaking for the first project. And it's exciting to see that this really can make a difference in the ability to get these projects off the ground. They're small.

They're 10 units or less. But that's 10 families that are going to be able to afford to buy a house when the when the project's finished and it's gonna look really great. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Great.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators deRazzo? Aye. DeRazzo, aye. Choi?

Aye. Choi, aye. Arreguin? Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Sayardo? 2-0.

The vote is 2-0. Remain on the call. Thank you so much. K. We'll move on now to item six, which is SB1171.

Thank you, Madam chair, for the opportunity to present SB 1171. I wanna begin by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you and your staff for the thoughtful consideration of this bill. SB 1171 would make any private entity that contracts with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, colloquially known as ICE, ineligible to receive a state funded loan or grant.

Since 06/06/2025, ICE has conducted military style immigration raids, arrest, and harassment at California worksites, homes, and public spaces, and we've all seen it.

We've seen, the media reports and the videos. Media reports and civil rights complaints followed ICE's increased enforcement presence, and they documented instances of excessive use of force, unlawful detention, racial profiling, mistaken detention, and assault. The indiscriminate, brutal, and unconstitutional nature of the immigration rates have wrecked havoc in California. The Federal Government's refusal to host hold ICE accountable has emboldened them to act without fear of consequences, and the enforcement tactics disregard California's commitment to public safety and respect for public order.

While California cannot stop ICE from conducting the raids in our state, we do have the ability to decide how best to spend our state tax dollars.

As such, California has an obligation to ensure its resources are used to protect the residents of the state, and that means ensuring that ICE does not benefit from state funding either directly or indirectly. SB 1171 is very simple. It makes any private entity that contracts with ICE ineligible for state funded grants and loans.

Before I introduce my witness, I'd like to thank the California Chamber for their engagement on this bill, and I'm committed to working with them on amendments that will ensure detainees receive all appropriate resources and care while in custody. With me to testify today is Hector Pereyra, Political Manager at the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice.

Welcome.

Morning, Chair and members. My name is Hector Pereyra, Political Manager, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice. A regional coalition of over 40 organizations serving immigrant communities across San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. In addition to our policy advocacy and legal services, we manage a rapid response hotline for our region, and anchor the shutdown Adelanto Coalition, which fights for the closure of the Adelanto ICE processing center in San Bernardino County.

Through this work, we have extensive experience with private for profit detention, and have studied the grave negative impacts that that they have on the people detained and the local communities.

These facilities are notorious for inhumane conditions and systemic human rights violations. Since the beginning of this administration, dozens of people have died in ICE detention nationwide, including multiple deaths in California. In 2025 alone, at least thirty one people died in ICE custody, the highest number in two decades, and deaths continue to rise in 2026. Just last month, we had another death at the Adelanto Ice Processing Center. And to be clear, these deaths are the results of purposeful and systemic medical neglect.

ICE's deadly facilities also have significant negative impacts on local communities. They burden local water and sewage systems leading to harmful pollution and local waterways, which is a significant problem, for example, in the City of Adelanto. They divert critical resources such as water and electricity away from local communities, and they cut off revenue and economic opportunities for those communities, and they cut off revenue and economic opportunities for those communities.

Other corporations are unlikely to invest, when there are ICE facilities, because these communities become overburdened by private attention, and it's unappealing for industry. This cripples local economies making them reliance on industries that harm them.

This is especially problematic considering many of these communities are majority minority, working class communities that are already negatively impacted by harmful industries. California must take a strong sense and protect our communities against ICE abuses and exploitation. They must send a clear message that none of our resources will be used to partner with this administration's agenda of cruelty.

No entity who benefits from the dehumanization of immigrants should be eligible for any state funds, especially when those funds are sustained in large part by the contributions of the very immigrants that they dehumanize. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who is here to support SB 1171? Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition to SB 1171?

No? Seeing none? Okay. Any questions or comments from the dais? Senator Seyarto?

Yes?

Do we have a list of these entities that are getting state funding currently that would not get state funding after this bill passes?

No. We don't have a list.

Is there anybody getting state funding right now that is would be affected by this?

Well, that's the point. That's the point is that, if in fact there are is anybody and what the chamber brought up were really valid issues and that's one of the reasons we're working with them is they're concerned with contracts for medical services, contracts for food services, those kinds of things and we don't wanna impact those. We wanna make sure they're living up to whatever contract they have.

And we don't wanna impact the the chain of businesses that go down the row that can be tied to this and then get defunded when they're doing work out in the community also to provide food or to provide other stuff.

Right.

We we wanna make sure that the care that's provided in the centers is the best care possible. So we're not talking about those kinds of entities. We're talking about relationships and partnerships that go it's hedge funds that come in and make money off of these detention centers and then have a lot of other businesses for which they could be applying for the state resources to to either through grants or loans to be able to expand their business.

And those are the ones that we're targeting. Yeah.

I'm a little concerned with the tentacles that we are unaware of the collateral damage that gets done with this. And you know, for me, I think there's other ways of us to extend our message for those that want to extend that message. I think it's been extended already that we have grave concerns. And I just think these efforts are are not helpful. And I think there's collateral damage that gets done that we may not even be aware of.

And for those reasons, I will not be supporting this.

Thank you.

Yes. Senator Choi.

Thank you. I wanna also register my opposition with some reasons. I understand the intent of this bill. Obviously, you are opposing the ICE law enforcement activities in our state and try to discourage by this bill prohibiting any private companies doing the service to ICE with the contract will have no state grant or loan programs in the future. So this impact on this particular bill will trigger series of problems.

Do you think passage of this bill will stop the ICE activities or law enforcement against the illegal aliens in our state, which I understand still over 2,000,000, if that's to my data that I have, is over 2,000,000 illegal aliens, and ICE is trying to conduct their job. And by making their lives so difficult by prohibiting private companies to supply necessary things.

So in your comment, I was not sure this is to exclude some essential items like food and water or even food suppliers, water suppliers or electricity supplies, all fall into this category. This is welfare. I mean, you mentioned the support witness, you mentioned that this is inhumane treatment.

I think this kind of bill will create more inhumane treatment with those kind of lack of basic services support from private companies. ICE may run into difficulty providing necessary things, like even medical service if necessary. And their activities, according to their plan federal plan, their act law enforcement activities will continue as far as I know.

Even even nearby state, all those states with no this kind of so they may have a temporary, and they may drum up the illegal aliens here and ship them temporarily to other state. And that will cause dry up our local business revenue potential by providing the services to these groups by contracting with your private companies.

So you are make creating this bill will create a more negative impact even upon the illegal aliens who might have been drummed up by them, by the ICE and housed in another facility, even they they can they can find a space, and even they can have a temporary, even worse shelter, like a tent. So you can think about the consequences, blocking and making them making their job difficult. But by doing so, who's benefiting?

Who's gonna have more difficulty and will end up with the more difficult situations in inhumane conditions? Have you thought about that?

So Senator, let me just see if I can answer it this way because you've got about 50 questions in there. And we could have a debate, a long debate for a long time. This bill is very simple. Number one, we're talking about the Federal Government and abusive behavior that is unchecked. You will call people illegal aliens.

Quite frankly, I'm offended by it, but that's okay. We all get offended by different things in this legislature. These are individuals that have been detained on a civil matter that are not accused of a crime and that maybe US citizens, maybe have given permit permission to be here but indiscriminately are picked up and detained. The only thing this bill says is California has values. And our values are that we're going to treat everybody with respect.

And that if you're going to be detained in an illegal manner and in a manner that violates the civil rights of people that are here in our state, then we're not going to use state funds to allow the relationships that that different companies have with ICE to metastasize and get bigger because we don't agree with the tactics and we don't agree with the way that ICE has been doing their business.

There's no reason for the state to do loans or grants to companies that are in cahoots and are making money off a system that is really hurting residents in the state of California. Now you can disagree with that, and I respect that.

You're entitled to to that opinion. But it was brought to our attention with a modicum of of of good intentions that there are contracts to help take care of the people that are detained.

And we don't want to impact those contracts because we want people to be able to get, good, healthy contract with the state somewhere, and we don't want to impact that. But if you're making money off of these detention facilities, we just don't want to be using state funds to allow you to make more money. That's simply what what the bill does. We've got other bills that deal with other issues relating to conduct inside the facility. This one doesn't deal with conduct.

This just has to do with with not using state resources to do those kind of grants, grant opportunities. And it it's it's our intention that in the future, that that'll be one of the questions on the grant applications there. But it doesn't say that here. It just we're we're just this is just the the broad policy.

Yeah. May I ask Senator? The bill is about state eligibility. Nothing in the bill cuts off the existing services infrastructure, that detention centers are gonna continue to maintain.

Congress appropriated $45,000,000,000 just for immigrant detention, so I think they're okay. Those services, as inadequate as they are currently, will continue to be administered in these detention centers. This is just about state eligibility.

So you are talking about the new contracts?

I'm sorry? Yes.

You are talking about only only new contracts.

That's right.

Yeah. Earlier Senator, couple of years' statement of ICE mistreating the detainees and U. S. Citizens even drum up. I think that's a totally different issue.

I support what you are saying that there has to be humanely and U. S. Citizens should be protected. And I'm sure they make mistakes, and we have seen it. And that sure they make mistakes, and we have seen it.

And those issues are separate things and should be addressed to the Federal Government, Homeland Security Department. However, this particular bill is any private company in California providing any services by contracting will be penalized. But by doing so, what I'm worried about is that what you are worrying about, even further inhumane treatments that they will be receiving because of a lack of services that the ICE will be necessary to receive from the private private companies.

That's why there'll be even negative impact upon those detainees. So I don't think this is a right approach.

I don't think I can support it today.

Thank you. I think you have more than adequately answered the questions, and I appreciate all the work that you're doing around this. I just wanna remind us that this is with regards to contracts that are signed after July 2027. That's what we're talking about here.

Contracts after 07/01/2027. So I appreciate the what you're doing, how you're doing it. We have to send a stronger message that this kind of treatment is unacceptable in the state of California. With that, I could you wrap up? I'll adopt that as my closing.

Thank you, Madam chair.

And thank you, Sir, for being here as well.

Thank you.

Okay. Motion by Senator Arreguin. We'll call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Senators Durazo?

Durazo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

No.

Choi, no. Arreguin?

Aye.