Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguin, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Weiner.

A quorum is present. With the members and our guests be on the rail and in the gallery please rise. We will be led in prayer this morning by our Chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, After which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

We gather in God's presence again. The following short poem is by Mary Oliver. It's called Song of the Builders. On a summer morning, I sat down on a hillside to think about God, a worthy pastime. Near me, I saw a single cricket.

It was moving the grains of the hillside this way and that way. How great was its energy, how humble its effort. Let us hope it will always be like this, each of us going on in our inexplicable ways building the universe. Creator of mystery and wonder, grant that this day we may go about our work with the humble effort of the cricket and the joy of being human. We ask this in your name.

Amen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag. [Pledge of Allegiance].

We are now at privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read.

Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read.

Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Senators, we are now at motions, resolutions, and notices. Seeing none, we will now move to consideration of the daily file starting with Governor's appointments. File item number six.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. Colleagues file item number six is a confirmation of Jim Cervantes for reappointment to the California Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors. He was first appointed in 2022 and currently serves as a board's chair.

He also serves as a member of the Lafayette City Council. He was approved, by the rules committee on May 20. An unanimous vote, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Allen? Alvarado- Gil? Caballero? Dahle? Durazo? aye, Gonzalez? Hurtado? Pérez? Valladares? aye.

Secretary, call the absent members.

Allen? Alvarado- Gil? Caballero? Dahle? Gonzalez? Hurtado? Pérez?

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Allen? aye, Alvarado- Gil? Caballero? aye, Dahle? Gonzalez? Hurtado? Pérez?

Aye- 35, No- 0. That appointment is confirmed. We'll now move to file item number seven.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. File item number seven is a. Thank you madam president. File item seven is a confirmation of Martin Muoto for appointment to the California Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors.

He is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Solar Impact and Model Z, which focuses on the development of affordable housing, which I think we desperately need. He was approved by the rules committee on May 20 on a five-zero vote.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Alvarado- Gil? aye, Dahle? Durazo? aye, Gonzalez? Hurtado? aye, Padilla? aye, Pérez? Smallwood Cuevas? aye.

Aye- 37. No- 0. That appointment is confirmed. We are now at file item number 10. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. Colleagues file item 10 is the confirmation of Larry Shingold for reappointment to the State Mining and Geology Board. Hopefully, he can help us open our copper and antimony mines here in the State of California, so we don't have to rely on China.

He was first appointed in 2022 and currently serves as a board chair. Prior to his retirement in 2024, he's a long term legislative staffer with 36 experience serving both in the State Assembly and Senate.

He was approved by the rules committee on, May 20 on a 5-0 vote. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Dahle? Gonzalez? Limón? Menjivar?

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Dahle? Gonzalez? Limón? Menjivar?

Ayes- 36. No- 0. That appointment is confirmed.

Senators, we are now at Senate third reading. We will start with file item 17, but I want to also inform everyone that we are not necessarily going to go directly into in the file order today.

So listen to the floor managers. Remember when they tell you that you're up because we may be kind of jumping around the file today. But we will start at file item 17, SB 1173. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1173 by Senator Caballero, an act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I rise to present SB 1173, which would give discretion to a judge to determine whether the evidence presented at trial supports instructing the jury on a lesser related offense. Under current law, defense attorneys cannot request that a jury consider lesser related offenses even when the facts support them. In practice, prosecutors routinely pursue the charge with a higher penalty if they believe they can meet that burden, omitting any lesser alternative.

This creates an all or nothing framework for juries even when the evidence supports a more proportionate outcome.

In 1984, the California Supreme Court in People v Geiger held that when supported by the evidence, lesser related offense instructions could be given to a jury at the request of the defense. For over a decade, trial courts allowed this practice. However, in 1998, during the tough on crime era, the court reversed course in People v Verks, which eliminated the ability of defense counsel to make such a request, citing the lack of statutory, authority citing the lack of statutory authority.

SB 1173 provides this statutory authority in a balanced and limited way, allowing the defense to request a lesser related instruction only where the evidence supports it. The judge retains full discretion to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the instruction is appropriate before it is presented to a jury.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove. You are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I respectfully rise in opposition of, SB 1173. Judicial discretion, while I think is well intended and most of our judges make great decisions, it does create inconsistency across the state based on the judge and the area that they're from in their ideology. It also creates inconsistency on justice.

If you take the evidence based theory and apply it to just what happened a few weeks ago, you had a convicted felon, convicted by a jury of his peers, of sexually assaulting a 11 year old little girl, and that little girl came up and told her story.

The jury believed him. He was convicted of six counts of vaginal and anal penetration with a 6 year old little girl or excuse me, 11 year old little girl. And the judge said, see in five weeks for sentencing, and let him out. He got away. That's some of the things that that's just one example of poor judicial discretion, which creates inconsistency.

I don't think there's another judge in the state that would allow to happen, but allowing further judicial discretion even if evidence appears evidence appears that the individual was guilty, he was gonna be sentenced, and they let him out of jail, and now he's nowhere to be found. I think that we have to have consistency across the state, all 58 counties, and that the law should be applied equally. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

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

Thank you very much. I well, I appreciate the comments of of, my good friend from Bakersfield. The reality of the situation is that our system is not perfect. But what is important is that we have equity and that we have the ability to argue, from a defense perspective that a lesser offense is more appropriate in the under the circumstances, ultimately, this is a jury decision.

It's a jury to that will determine whether the person is guilty of the lesser related offense or the more serious offense as, as prosecuted.

And we all know of instances where people of color or poor people don't get the representation that they need, and it's important that we have a balanced scale which allows the argument that a lesser related offenses offense is more appropriate. It's up to a jury. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Arreguin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker.

Blakespear. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes.

Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Dahle. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon, McGuire. Aye.

McNerney. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Niello. Limon.

Aye. Niello. No. Ochoa Bogh. No Padilla.

Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto.

No. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Umberg. Valladares. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pierson. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Archuleta. Aye. Becker? Cervantes? Dahle? Gonzales?

Hurtado? Umberg?

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Becker. Aye. Cervantes, Dahle, Gonzales, Hurtado, Umberg. McNerney, aye to no.

Ayes 25, Noes 10. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 18, SB 1354. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Archuleta an act relating to military.

Senator Archuleta, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I rise with a great sense of pride and duty that I present Senate Bill 1354, which would prohibit military personnel not operating under Title 10 from another state, territory, district to enter California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor of the state of California.

The bill the bill's clear prohibition on out of state, unapproved military activity reinforces the governor's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the state militia and the state guard here in California. It ensures California retains control over any armed or law enforcement operations conducted within its borders. Unfortunately, California is well aware of what it's like to have a national guard activated in our state without the express permission from the governor of our state.

California should not live in fear of unwarranted, unwanted military involvement from any other state without the express permission of our own governor here in California. I want to clarify that this bill does not affect the activation of the guard under Title 10. This legislation would not impact current mutual aid agreements, such as the Emergency Management Assistant Compact, or prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools training here in our California bases.

At least seven other states have passed similar legislation that prohibits outside forces from entering their states, including Maryland, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Dakota, and Washington. This measure helped prevent the misuse of military power.

For these reasons, I ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, Members. I rise in opposition to SB 1354. With deep respect from my colleague from, Pico Rivera. You know, if you read our constitution and and the way our frame of government works, it is a commander in chief that's overriding, authority to our military. I understand where the author is coming from, but at the end of the day, whether you like the commander in chief or not, the commander in chief is the commander in chief of our military.

And despite what any governor of the 50 states says, the commander in chief says he is the person who dictates our military and where the military goes. And so for those reasons, I oppose SB 1354.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. As the chair of the Public Safety Committee, I wanna speak in support of SB 1354. Colleagues, this is a simple bill that other states have already put into law to say that if a president or a governor is sending troops to another state, that that's not allowed unless we have the permission of the governor of that state. It's unfortunate that we need a bill like this, but it's important to protect the sovereignty of California and the safety of Californians.

This bill was amended to remove the criminal penalty against those individual officers.

This is really about just making it clear, similar to what other states have done, that you cannot send troops into California without the express permission of the governor of California, making sure that our troops are not being weaponized for political purposes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1354.

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

Once again, it does not affect our military as a whole. We have troops coming into California for training and and, other military duties, it does not affect that. It only makes sure that if anyone comes in, they have the permission from our state government, which is our commander in chief here in California. With that, I ask for your vote, and I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye is 29, Noes 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 19, SB 1090. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1090 by Senator Perez in equity to housing.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Good morning, Madam President and Members. SB 1090, the Keep Altadena Lands and Altadena Hands Act would impose a five year prohibition on an individual or entity that owns 75 or more single family properties for making unsolicited offers to purchase property in areas affected by a fire where an emergency was declared. In January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fire ravaged the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region. Among the challenges raised during the recovery process is the increased presence of investors aggressively pursuing impacted properties at below market rates.

This dynamic called disaster capitalism has occurred in several post disaster communities.

In response to this threat, governments have established temporary protections through executive actions, including following the twenty twenty three Maui fires and the twenty twenty two hurricane Ian in Florida. In that same spirit, governor Newsom signed executive order n seven twenty five to protect disaster impacted residents from predatory real estate speculators from the affirmation fires through 07/01/2025. Property purchase trends in Altadena before and after the Eaton Fire show a significant increase in investor purchasing of loss.

One report found investors purchased close to 49 of properties sold from February to July 2025 compared to only 10% during the same month time span in 2024. Similar trends were observed in the Palisades fire impacted area.

Predatory real estate speculation can have a ripple effect on disaster impacted communities, driving up housing costs, permanently displacing fire victims, and gentrifying neighborhoods. SB 1090 establishes long term protections for disaster impacted residents, both in the immediate aftermath and through the rebuilding period by creating a five year prohibition on unsolicited purchase offers from large scale property owners.

SB 1090 will provide disaster impacted survivors with the assurance and stability they need to focus on rebuilding their lives without being pressured or harassed to sell their property at an inopportune time. They will sell in if and when they want to. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 29. Noes 9. That measure passes. We are now at file item 29, SB 966. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 966 by Senator Gonzales, an act relating to safety and employment.

Senator Gonzales, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise today to present Senate Bill 966, which will codify critical safety standards and protect refinery workers from regulatory rollback. In 2012, a fire at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond endangered 19 workers and resulted in fifteen thousand residents seeking medical care. An investigation found the disaster could have been prevented if the refiner had acted on workers' safety concerns.

In response to disasters like this, OSHA or the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board adopted updated process safety management regulations in 2017 which strengthened worker protections including the right to select their own representative to participate in safety proceedings at refineries, report hazards hazards, excuse me, anonymously and ex access safety information and initiate stop work procedures.

Now under pressure from refineries, new regulations have been proposed that will weaken these hard won protections. SB 966 makes that right, permanent by codifying the existing worker representation and participation standards from 2017. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Valladares, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I respectfully rise in opposition, to SB 966. Let me be clear. Worker safety matters, refinery safety matters, community safety matters, But California has to start recognizing reality. We are already dealing with shrinking refinery capacity, fuel supply fragility, and some of the highest energy cost in America.

Families are struggling with affordability and policies like this continue adding instability and operational uncertainty to one of the most critical industries in our state. This bill has consequences. It expands mandates into the into nearly every aspect of refining operations and creates broad, vague standards around employee participation, shutdown recommendations, and operational decision making. This issue is not whether or not workers should have a voice. They absolutely should.

The issue is whether or not the legislature is now creating conflicting authority structures and additional legal exposure inside highly technical industrial operations where clarity and accountability are essential to safety itself. And what concerns me most is that many of these exact issues were already litigated and negotiated over several years between Cal OSHA, Cal EPA, labor, and industry stakeholders. A settlement agreement was reached in 2024 and now the legislature is stepping in to override portions of that negotiated agreement through statute.

That sends a terrible message about California's regulatory stability. Because if parties negotiate in good faith with state agencies only to have the rules changed politically afterward, we undermine the process entirely.

At some point, we have to acknowledge that every additional mandate, every additional lawsuit risk, and every additional operational burden eventually shows up in our cost of living, which is why I urgely I strongly urge a no vote.

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

Thank you so much, Madam President. I wanna be very clear here. This is not a bill on refinery affordability or for whatsoever. All this is saying is that we would like a worker voice. The refinery workers that mostly represent the refineries across California, which are, represented by the United Steel workers, need to have a voice at the table as well as many of our building trades.

The settlement agreement that had been mentioned by my colleague, was reached in 2024, which required CalOSHA to propose new process safety management regulations, and it was not based on negotiations between all impacted parties. In fact, there was, of course, as mentioned, the USW and the steel workers tried to get answers on what the intent of the changes were and whether refinery workers were included in the negotiation process.

And this, puts in statute that those vote voices need to be, upheld and ensure that, they prevent additional safety and health standards at our California refineries. With that, I ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 29, Noes 9. Call the absent Members secretary.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30, nos nine. That measure passes. We are now at file item 20, SB 1256. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1256 by Senator Jones an act relating to land use.

Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Good morning, madam president, members. I have an exciting subdivision map act bill. It is SB 1256, a narrow district bill addressing repetitive lawsuits on a housing project in my district. This measure is intended to prevent needless delays on a housing project of about 500 new homes and help get much needed housing built for California families. The bill does not eliminate secret review or prevent an an initial challenge and is narrowly tailored to address this local circumstance without broadly changing statewide law.

Please vote for SB 1256.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, madam chair. I rise as chair of the local government committee. We heard this bill in committee. Unfortunately, there was late opposition regarding fire safety the day before the hearing regarding this project. We weren't able to fully vet the concerns in time, so I supported the bill at that time, but stated I wanted to see the fire safety concerns addressed.

I asked for an amendment to make it clear that, you know, this bill isn't a way to avoid our fire safe regulations. We have not yet reached agreement working on it, but I wanted to explain that I would not be supporting today for this bill. Thank you.

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

Thank you, madam president. I appreciate, the chairwoman's, comments regarding SB 1256.

We are in continued talks, my office with the consultant from local government and the folks involved in this in San Diego County, I believe that we'll be able to get to a positive place once we get it over to the assembly, and I've made a commitment to the chairwoman to keep her and her staff abreast of all of the changes and updates and ask for your aye vote today on SB 1256.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, secretary, please call the roll.

Allen? Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Arreguin? Aye. Ashby?

Aye. Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Caballero? Aye. Cervantes? Aye. Choi?

Aye. Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Durazo? Gonzales? Grayson? Aye. Grove? Aye. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Aye. Laird? Limon? McGuire? Aye. McNerney? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Niello?

Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Padilla? Aye.

Perez? Aye. Reyes? Richardson? Aye.

Rubio? Aye. Seyarto? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas?

Stern? Aye. Strickland? Aye. Umberg? Aye. Valladares? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pierson? Aye. Wiener? Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Allen, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Laird, Limon, Reyes, Smallwood-Cuevas.

Ayes 32, nos zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 24, SB 865. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 865 by Senator Ashby, an act relating to music festivals.

Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. In the Sacramento region alone, Aftershock and Golden Sky Music Festivals generate an economic impact of over $44,000,000. These events supported 13,000 jobs across multiple sectors and generated over $230,000 in local sales tax revenue, and 1,100,000 in state sales tax contributions. And that's just one city with two music festivals. Imagine the impact of music festivals across the entire state of California.

SB 865 is intended to make sure that the creative economy continues to infuse all of our districts. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Ayes 36, Noes 1, that measure passes. We will now move to file item 25, SB 866. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 866 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to land use.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise to present SB 866, which requires jurisdictions that do not receive homeless housing assistance and prevention grants to report on homelessness data, regional coordination efforts, and strategies in their housing elements. Homelessness is a regional problem that does not stop at city or county boundaries.

Without formal planning, governments are prone to focusing on duplicative programs and reactive emergency management rather than investing in coordinated coordinated efforts to site and build shelter and housing and expand access to behavioral health services. SB 866 would promote effective homelessness approaches by requiring cities to identify service gaps, share data, and report on their regional coordination efforts.

I'm committed to exempting the smallest of cities from the requirements of SB 866 and will be taking an amendment at the next opportunity. This bill ensures accountability and alignment of our efforts to address homelessness, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Arreguin. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for the author. That's acceptable.

Will the author take a question?

Of course.

You may proceed.

Thank you. So in the discussion of this bill in the policy committee, an issue is raised as to whether this should apply to all jurisdictions that don't receive a direct allocation of HAPP dollars. Just keeping in mind that smaller jurisdictions may not have the adequate staff to be able to do this level of analysis and reporting.

If this bill moves out today, would you be willing to consider amending the bill to exempt smaller jurisdictions or or maybe changing the requirements reporting requirements for those small jurisdictions given the concerns around staffing resources?

Yes. Absolutely. That thank you. Through the Chair. May I answer?

Yes. Thank you for asking that. We were thinking of 50,000, people or fewer as the the level at which they would not have to participate. And this would exempt a large, number of cities in the state of California, but that's still it would still capture more cities than are currently planning doing coordinated homelessness planning as part of the housing element.

Thank you. On the merits of the bill, if I may speak to it.

Yes. You may proceed.

Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, I urge an Aye vote on SB 866. With that commitment from the author, I do understand the concerns around Eilton as was mentioned in the local government committee, or a smaller jurisdiction, including city of Albany, which actually submit a letter in opposition to this bill not having the resources to implement this. But I do think this is an important planning and reporting exercise that larger jurisdictions should engage in who aren't getting the Direct HAPP Dollars.

So that they're thinking about how they're working to address unsheltered homelessness in California. Because the reality is that every jurisdiction, every county in California has a responsibility to address and reduce unsheltered homelessness. Whether you have one person or whether you have 50,000 people. And so this ensures that all California jurisdictions with some some exceptions and some and some requirements have to think intentionally around what they're doing to prevent homelessness and reduce unsheltered homelessness and take affirmative steps to implement those policies and practices.

So I think this is a worthy exercise.

I think the author for working with the housing committee on this bill and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to the Chair of the housing committee for for reinforcing the need for this for the amendment with respect to small cities. And he mentioned the city in my district. I know some of the members who voted no on this bill and the committees share the same the same concern. And the smallest of cities, do face cookies costs, but so do others.

And I so I want to encourage the the author on this bill, but but really many of the bills that we've been seeing through that move through this through this body, the constitution requires, that when the legislature mandates these kinds of activities on cities and counties that we reimburse them for the costs.

That is a well established proposition in the constitution that the voters have adopted repeatedly. And yet this measure, like many measures, it's not by far not unique to this measure. This measure says, no, we're not going to reimburse cities for this, whether it's a small, medium or large sized city, because, let's counsel has written in the bill, cities could recover the cost through the imposition of a fee. Well, when you're putting a plan together for addressing homelessness, there's no one to charge a fee to.

That is a purely abstract theoretical proposition that's not real.

And it's not consistent with what the Constitution requires.

And so I would just encourage the author both for medium small, medium, and large sized cities, we have an obligation when we impose these sorts of requirements as they are as necessary as both the author and the housing chair have mentioned that we fulfill our constitutional mandate to account for the costs and apply appropriate reimbursement, and with that I will urge an Aye vote with the author's commitment on the small cities, but I think we also need to assure that the mandate cost that we are obligated to meet, we actually fulfill our constitutional duty to do so.

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

Thank you, Madam President. I wanna speak in opposition of this bill. Unfortunately, at this juncture of legislation, when the bill is on the floor, we must be ready to vote on something that is cooked. This is not a bill that is cooked. This is a cool this is a bill that is still in the sous chef kitchen.

Unfunded mandates, one size fits all policy has come off this legislature floor too often. We must recognize the diversity of cities in California. I represent some of the smallest cities in Senate district floor, including Amador City of a little over a 100 population. The staff and resources do not compare to some of our coastal cities coming from the author's district.

In addition, the largest city, city of Modesto that I also represent is in opposition to this bill in addition to dozens and dozens of cities within California.

So I have to ask if we have this level of opposition, not just from rural communities, not just from Republican represented communities but from cities across the state, why do we have a half cooked bill on this legislature's floor in order to increase the the mandates, the unfunded mandates and the one size fits all policies coming out of this this system. We know that we have the greatest level of of failure when it comes to addressing homelessness in California. Let's not add to it.

Let's let's help to reward those communities with local control and local decision making, to help fix the homeless problem and let's ensure that those that are doing the right things, making the right tasks are receiving funding from the state. Unfunded mandates, we don't need any more of those, and that's why I encourage us to vote no on this bill.

Thank you. Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I just I wanna commend the author for for bringing this forward in the sense that we all are very committed to making sure that we take care of an unhoused population. But like many of my colleagues already expressed, it is, a little bit of a concern, and I wanna thank the author for agreeing to look at the number, the size of the cities.

However, I still have concerns with the mandated cost, and sometimes it's for me, it's not about the population. I had shared I have a city that's 6.7 square miles with nearly 80,000 residents.

So they're already so stretched thin even though it's such a a small piece of land with so many, residents. They're having a hard time. So I just wanna encourage the author to continue to have these conversations because it concerns me that we already put so much on their plate. So I will support the bill, as we continue the discussion, and I appreciate the conversation with that. Thank you.

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

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the commentary on the floor today, and I wanna particularly thank the housing chair and his staff for working with me on this bill. It's important to recognize the importance of removing all cities under 50,000 from, this bill's application because we have 483 incorporated cities and, removing all cities under 50,000 excludes 296 of them. So more than half of the cities in the state will no longer be implicated by removing cities that are under 50,000.

It's important to recognize too that what we do with our housing element updates in cities is we account for people's housing. We spend enormous amounts of time talking about where to put higher density housing, where we should have certain land uses, how we should provide for people to live in cities. And as part of this process, it's really an oversight for all cities not to be doing planning around their homeless residents because cities do have people who are living on street corners and in river beds.

And when they're not counting them, reporting on where, how many exits there are from homelessness, how many people are falling into homelessness, actually thinking about the spectrum of housing and homelessness as it goes from being unhoused to being housed at the highest level. So really, to me it seems like this is something that has been an oversight in our planning process, that housing elements are not accounting for homelessness as part of the normal course of business.

I recognize that we're that this amendment that I'm committing to take will exclude more than half the cities in the state of California. But it still is progress because more cities, not just the biggest cities, the HAPP cities, there are only 12 of them that are getting HAPP money. So there are a lot of cities in the state of California. We have almost 500 of them that are actually not doing this type of planning around homelessness. And we know that people are homeless in city boundaries.

They're on city streets. They're in City Creeks and ravines. And so it it really when you're thinking about how to manage the homelessness crisis in the state of California, it does require this type of planning at the city level. So with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 25; noes, 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 76, SB 1259. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1259 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to refineries.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized. Senator Blakespear, you are recognized. We will pass on that file and move to file item 46, SB 1329. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1329 by Senator McNerney, an act relating to taxation to, to take effect immediately, tax levied.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president, distinguished colleagues. I'm going to, over the next couple of hours, maybe not that long, convince you to vote for an aye on SB 1329. But first, I wanna say two things. First of all, companies like predictability. They like to, to know what they're gonna be facing.

And secondly, my understanding is that Republicans like lower taxes and hate higher taxes. So, please keep those two things in mind. They'll come up again later. S—and SB 1329 concerns solar farms. Solar farms have had a special place in the California economy since 1980.

Solar farms don't pay property taxes. They're excluded from property taxes. Now, is that fair? Why would solar companies be excluded from property taxes? I worked in the wind industry, and we had to pay property taxes.

That's not fair. I don't—I think solar companies should pay property taxes. Well, but I guess at the end of this year, that solar tax exemption expires, so, solar companies are gonna have to—solar farms—are gonna have to pay property taxes. Now, if you're a county that has solar farms, you're gonna be making billions and billions of dollars.

Well, maybe not billions and billions, but you'll be making quite a bit of new money that you didn't expect and you haven't had before. So, this should make, make your counties happy. You're gonna be able to afford money for schools, for roads. You're gonna be able to pay hospitals. I mean, this is a windfall.

So, I think, I think that's great. But without SB 29, if we move forward as is, the 59 counties in California could each adopt a different—adopt their own way of assessing property taxes on solar farms. Now, what does that mean? That means uncertainty for companies. Companies that want to put solar farms in your counties are gonna say there's too much uncertainty, I'm gonna move to a state, maybe one of our neighboring states that doesn't have these these qualifications, and I'm gonna put this farm there and I'm gonna sell power to California, and I'm not gonna hire California people. I'm just gonna get their money. So, that's a bad outcome.

So, we wanna put certainty into, into the market, and that's what SB 1329 does. It would establish a preferred method of assessment of property taxes. Now, again, these are new revenues to states. These are new revenues to, to our counties. But, but wait.

There's an issue here. Some folks some counties are saying, but we want more—we want more tax revenue from this. We want to, we want to include intangibles such as contracts and, and power purchase agreements in our tax assessments. So, that means that the taxes will go higher. So, these companies are gonna pay higher taxes, and your counties are gonna get more money.

But that, again, introduces uncertainty into the market. So, what SB 329 does, it identified a couple of idea—a couple of intangibles for exclusion. And then, again, that would lower taxes by, by including because state law forbids ex—intangibles from being assessed in property taxes. So, I've heard from some colleagues that their counties are unhappy. They wanna get more tax revenue.

And I'm listening to these discussions that I'm opening—I'm open to—ideas on how to improve the legislation. We've got a couple of ideas on the table. And one last note, an aye vote on this bill will raise taxes. So, with that, I'm going to yield to the speaker and listen to the opposition here and decide, how, how to respond in my closing remarks.

Thank you. Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I rise in support of SB 1329. We've been working for a long time to expand solar energy in California. It's essential for our climate goals, and we want the generation to happen here in California. Right now, Texas and Florida are generating more clean power than California, which should not be the case.

So, we need more large-scale and small-scale solar development, and we can't risk losing this development to other states. To ensure that solar energy is provided to Californians at a fair and reasonable price, those who build it need to be able to anticipate their tax liability, regardless of where they choose to build in the state. And without SB 1329, they'll have to assume the highest possible tax, which will then determine their power purchase agreements and impact rates.

This will provide certainty and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. Far be it from me to disagree with my, my good friend from Stockton, or the Bay Area as well. Let me just say that part of the challenge with this discussion is it depends on where you live.

And if you live along the coast, you're not putting up solar panels, farms, you're looking towards the Central Valley, and I know my good colleague represents the Central Valley. But what's interesting to me is that the CCAs, the, the green energy creators that we've created move into the Valley for their energy and take it out of the Valley to the big cities. And while I appreciate the need to go green, I also appreciate equity.

And what is not happening with these solar farms is a commitment to the local community to reduce their energy costs.

The energy is extracted and taken somewhere else. And one of the idiosyncrasies in this legislature is that we set up a system to incentivize the development of solar energy, and I'm all for it. I believe in solar energy. I think it's important, but I also think there ought to be some benefit to the community that has to look at solar farms instead of green growing product.

And this is being accelerated because of the lack of water, and stigma that says you have to put water underneath the ground if you're gonna take it out of the ground.

And so, there's this proliferation of farmland being trained—changed—into solar farms. And there—the county sees a reduction in revenue when that happens because farms, agricultural farms, pay property tax; solar does not. And this year, I had a bill to do a study to develop an equity plan for the for the Valley, and that bill didn't make it out of Appropriations, as some bills, of other people as well.

But my point is, is that we need more information, not less, and we need a system that's fair to the Valley so that the people that live there that are going to see a reduction in property value, the local government, because of these solar farms.

I mean, think about it. Do you wanna live next to a solar farm? Do you want your community to be surrounded by solar farms? I think not. We want it to be fair.

We want—community solar provides an incentive to the local community, and that's not what's happening. And so, while I support solar and while I believe in our need to go green, I also believe fervently that we have to have a system that creates long-term good jobs for people that live in the Valley and have lived there for generations. We've gotta create an opportunity for them to reduce their energy costs, which are some—among the highest in the state.

$600 to $700 a month during the summer months is unsustainable, and we need to make sure that local government gets the revenue that they need. And this bill is, is—while there is a commitment, I believe, to continue conversations, I, just, at this point, cannot support the bill, and, and speak up for all the Valley residents that are worried about whether they're gonna have a future in the Valley because these—the unmitigated impacts on the community is gonna be tremendous.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. Colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to SB 1329, which—there was a promise made when the previous Senator, majority leader, Hertzberg, got the solar tax exclusion that said that that would be it. That would give opportunity for solar panel companies and large-scale solar to be able to figure out how to provide affordable energy and green energy, and so, the agreement was made.

Now, that agreement is coming to an end, and there's a new bill, this bill, coming up, which is not a solar tax exclusion, but it does limit the ability for which you would fundamentally alter the valuation of utility scale solar. It's a formula-driven appraisal methodology that statutory preference for cost approach on replacing a new values.

So, basically, you couldn't assess this property like you would assess a warehouse or another business. Kern County produces about 66—60%—of the state's solar, solar. It's produced in our county. We don't get water, so, our, our farmers are making the tough decision to take legacy farmland, as my colleague said, out of production and put solar panels in. A large of these—a lot of these large utility solar companies take up beautiful areas in our desert.

I have to tell you, I've said this to my good colleague from Santa Monica when he was introducing a bill last year. Come get your stuff, because I'm not allowed to say what I really wanna say on the floor. Thanks to my colleague from Yolo who schooled me on the rules of language on the floor. But Santa Monica gets about 77 kilowatts or megawatts of power from Kern County. Come get your solar panels and put them on your—on the beach.

I don't have an issue with that. I look at LADWP, 579 megawatts of power that we supply to LADWP and the Los Angeles residents in order to provide green technology. The East Bay, 212 megawatts. Again, come get your 6,000 acres of solar panels that are in my district, put them in your district around your communities and have the elevation of heat and the destruction of the land.

Come, come get those solar panels and get no credit for it for your county. You won't get taxpayer—you won't get tax information from them. You won't get tax funds from them. Revenue sources, they don't pay—you talked about fair share. They don't pay anything when it comes to roads, infrastructure, libraries, schools, nothing.

Nothing. They pay nothing. These large-scale utility plants—or these large-scale solar plants. In my good colleague's district from Santa Cruz, 130 megawatts comes from my district to your district to provide you green technology. I can tell you that I have reached out to the chair of my county board of supervisors and I said enough is enough.

We are the energy capital of the world. We can produce domestic oil and fuel here so we don't have to bring it in from foreign imports, and we could give them the green technology they want with these large-scale solars because we have the land to do it. But I want you to give me a commitment that you will delay, derail, pull off the agenda any pending solar panel. And I know there's a big project that's pending. Just pull it off the agenda.

Every time it shows up on the agenda, pull it off and delay it if this bill passes, because I am so tired of providing the energy and using our land and our resources, and now, you won't even let us have the tax revenue. You already passed a solar tax exclusion, but now, you won't even let us have the tax revenue after the promise that we would start getting tax revenue for these solar—large-scale solar facilities being in our district.

You won't even let us have the taxes to pay for schools and infrastructure in our district, and I think it's completely wrong that you would attack this district, my district, in this way, and respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I, I, I also rise in opposition to SB 1329, not coming from the San Joaquin Valley, but this bill has the same implications in the Napa Valley, the Sonoma Valley, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, and every other part of California. It's why both the rural counties and the urban counties are united in opposition. Look, the, this tax exclusion has been scheduled to expire at the end of this year since 2020.

So, it is already—the revenue that is supposed to come to the counties by, like any other property, is already scheduled to come to them.

There's no windfall here. And so, they have all budgeted for this for the last two years, preparing for this moment, not that they would get some special higher tax rate, but that it would be treated like any other taxpayer in their counties. So, there's no windfall and it will mean a direct cut, which is why all the county letters are—they're not about solar, they're about HR 1, because this is a direct hit to the general fund of every county in California.

If this bill were simply a bill that tried to harmonize assessment practices between counties, it would be—I would be prepared to support it. But it's not. It is an—it is an effort to rig the local property assessment system in order to advantage this industry. And, and I love this industry as much as anyone, but that's not what this—that's not what we should be doing today. This bill would, would exempt whole areas of intangible assets that are covered for every other industry.

It excludes them from, from assessments. It would exclude, uniquely for this industry, any of the effects of tariffs on obsolescence. That doesn't apply to wine or to anybody else that have been even harder hit by tariffs. And so, it is a series of special treatments for the solar industry. And look, this isn't just about large-scale solar in the San Joaquin Valley.

It is about—it is about all active solar projects, including residential. And I'm absolutely sure the folks that are asking me at Home Depot every time I go if I would like to install solar at my home, they are not picking up and moving to Arizona. Right? This industry is here to stay in California because that tax exclusion did its job.

It built a strong, healthy solar industry in California, and we cannot be doing this on the backs of the counties and particularly on the backs of the Medi Cal recipients that the counties are struggling to serve with that, but, and they cannot afford yet another hit to their general fund budget.

I urge a no vote.

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

So, well, first of all, I wanna thank my colleagues for speaking up, and I'm gonna try to address some, some of these issues, to my good friend, the Senator from Merced. The reduction of farm revenue, it is a legitimate point, but the—if a farmland does convert to solar, the solar will be assessed a property tax starting in 2027. So, I think actually we'll end up in an increase in tax revenue for those properties. And I'll certainly follow-up on that with the, with the gentleman from Merced.

Now, Bakersfield, it had a quite, quite a, quite a set of words there.

I appreciate the concern. We've had discussions, but I've had the Kern County representatives in my office about two weeks ago to go over this bill, and I did ask them for their inputs. How do we make this bill right for you all? And they have gotten back with very little, and what they've gotten back with, we have tried to incorporate into the bill.

So, we are listening to their feedback, and we will continue to work with Kern County and other counties to make sure that they feel like they've been treated fairly.

And, again, this is new revenue. Now, the gentleman from Yolo, good friend we've known for years, has said that this is not a windfall. Windfall may not be the exact right word, but this is new revenue. And to say that this is gonna be reduced—used to reduce Medi Cal is, is, in my mind, inaccurate. And with that, I will remind you that a no vote is a vote to raise taxes.

So, with that, I will ask for your aye vote and yield back to the, to the speaker.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 25. Senator McNerney moves the call.

We will now move to file item 89, SB 107. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 107 by Senator Menjivar, Inequity to Common Interest Development.

Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. Colleagues, we've heard so many stories about the rising and unexpected fees from homeowners living in HOAs. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported a man in Walnut Creek, California saw his HOA fees more than double since he moved in. He now pays $1,500 just in HOA fees. Where add that with his insurance, property taxes, he pays more in all of the association fees that he does on his mortgage.

Another community member or community members in Yorba Linda this year alone experienced a 20% increase in their regular assessments. They were then hit with a special assessment and an emergency assessment that amounted to $60,000 in the next four years.

Some residents have to make the hard decision to sell their home, move out, being quoted saying, we're doing, we're going to have to move out with my parents, and no one, I think in this body would like to move in with their parents. There's just no way we can afford that much money they're saying.

The reality of rising HOA fees starts to shift the conversation from what a home costs on the day you purchase it to what it will actually cost to hold on to over time, especially once you enter your era of being on a fixed income.

For homeowners trying to make sense of whether staying put still fits their financial situation or whether it's time to adjust plans, getting the full perspective can help bring clarity, which is why giving homeowners a vote is essential.

And I'm not naive to the rising costs, but SB 1007 is looking to bring the homeowners together and give them a voice in confronting the rise together. HOA boards have legal obligations to meet their communities needs and requirements outlined in the Davis Sterling Act.

But let's be clear. Back in the late eighties, this legislature did not give HOA boards unilateral authority to impose assessments on their homeowners. The authorizing statute that allows boards to levy assessments conditions, this power on a cap, which is the main crux of this bill.

It is about balance, allowing HOA boards to manage communities and homeowners voices, which is why SB 107 looks to amend current law to reduce that threshold in which boards are allowed to raise regular assessments without a vote of the homeowners from 20% to 8% to.

And I'd like to note, originally, the bill was introduced with just a adjusted for inflation, which is only increase increase of 2% to 3%, but we've jumped that up to 8%. HOA boards can still raise regular assessments above it if the homeowners approve it. And this bill does not touch any special or regular assessments. To be clear, I know the work on this vote isn't over.

I am committed to continued conversation with all stakeholders to see how we can get this delicate cap balance right. At the end of the day, this bill is about giving homeowners a voice in how their money is spent and confronting this rising cost together without stripping their ability to govern respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. I rise in opposition of SB 1007. We cannot treat HOAs like landlords because they are not.

HOAs are specifically the organization that the community of homeowners that are in a HOA community, the association is who they hire, the people that run the association, to make sure that all of the common costs that are shared amongst all of those homes, like the streets, the infrastructure, the gardening, the pool, the gates, all of those things, have to be maintained.

And there is a cost to maintain them, and that cost is not always, found in an 8% increase, per year.

They do have special assessments that they use sporadically, because if they didn't, there'd be a revolt and the HOA board would no longer be on the board. They are a little city, basically and they run like one. And there is no hidden costs in an HOA statement.

In fact, if I look at HOA statements, if you look at the financials that you get from HOAs, they are probably the easiest budget to read of all of the budgets that I have had to read over the years, and I have had to read a lot. So with that, I think we are delving into something that we are not going to fix.

But if we are not careful, we can hamper the ability of HOAs to take care of the communities in a way that upholds people's property values. If they have to start shortchanging what they need to spend on gardening and what they need to spend on pool maintenance and what they need to spend on street maintenance, it will reflect in the property values of the people that live there. That's their job.

And that's when I have an HOA board, that's who I hold accountable for this already. And that's why most people that are on HOA boards and I realize that is a difficult task.

And I am not here to defend HOA boards, believe me, or HOAs. But the reality of it is. There are there are a lot of guardrails for HOAs currently. They're not there to make money. They're just there to make sure that the job gets done.

And sometimes there's increased costs, especially in this day and age of runaway insurance and other things. And they those costs have to be shared amongst all of the homeowners. And, whether it's done through an assessment or it's done through the yearly cost where they spread it out so it's not as big a hit, that is up to the HOA and the homeowners that live there, not the legislature. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. I also rise in support of SB 938. This bill came through the Senate Housing Committee. It does sorry. Let me correct my comments.

I'm speaking in support of SB 1007, and I rise in support of that bill and urge you to vote for it. This bill did go through the Senate Housing Committee, And the bill does two things. One is a transparency piece, making sure that as part of an annual budget report to members of an HOA, that there's more information about anticipated expenditures versus the actual expenditures incurred by the HOA association and how much money is going to compensation of the management company.

I think that's information that all HOA members should have available and this is addressing a lack of transparency around current expenditures that are being made by associations. The second piece is is an issue I did have concerns about that other members of the committee did have concerns about, which is establishing a cap on regular assessments.

Originally, the cap the proposed cap was it was an inflation factor, the built in define what the inflation factor was. What we heard from representatives of associations what was that insurance costs are increasing, and other costs associated with maintaining HOAs.

And we need to make sure that we have flexibility so they can generate the revenue needed to be able to pay for those costs to ensure the ongoing operation of HOAs.

And so I wanna thank the author for working with the committee on amendments to amend that language to now establish an 8% cap. And I think you heard today in her floor statement a commitment to have further conversations with various stakeholders about that that cap to better ensure that HOAs are able to generate the revenue sufficient to pay for insurance costs and ongoing maintenance costs.

So with that commitment from the author that there this will be a point of ongoing conversation, I respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 107.

Thank you. Senator Grayson, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam president, I rise in support as a co-author of SB 1007. The reason is that millions of Californians live in HOA governed communities, and membership is not optional. It's mandatory. And HOA communities continue they continue to represent a growing share of the new housing stock across our state and across our nation.

So while California is already facing a severe housing affordability crisis, sudden HOA assessment increases can make homeownership unsustainable for seniors, for working families, and even for first time homebuyers.

Families budgeting for mortgages, insurance, and utilities deserve, HOA predictable and certainty when it comes to HOA cost. This bill and I wanna clarify, this bill does not ban necessary increases. It simply requires homeowner approval for increases beyond 8%. So responsible boards that communicate clearly and they justify cost should have no problem earning resident support.

This bill balances the operational needs of HOAs with the rights of people paying their bills. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam president. I rise in support of this bill. I have been blessed to live rule almost all of my entire life, and my daughter recently moved into an HOA. And, it was a new experience for us. She's safe and secure, but, we were moving in the house.

The garage was full of stuff and she left her car outside on the curb in front of her own home that she pays a substantial amount of rent for. She got a $100 fine, she got a warning another $100 fine because her trash cans were eleven minutes over the time allotted for your trash can to be outside on the curb.

So God forbid, if you're a single mom trying to get two kids off to school and you put your trash can out at 07:00 at night and don't put it in till 07:15 in the morning, you're gonna get another $100 fine.

So although I understand that HOAs have fees and you have to abide by the rules, I think that a cap to make sure that these fees do not go exorbitantly higher than they should, as my new experience with HOAs has change my opinion drastically on these fees. I respectfully ask for an aye vote to support SB 1007.

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

Thank you so much, Madam president. I really appreciate, the colleagues that stood up in support of this bill. Listen. People are looking at, HOA fees as worse than a mortgage. At least with the mortgage, it's a fixed rate.

You know exactly where you're gonna pay year over year, and especially if you're under fixed income. I recognize that 8% right now could still seem a little low for a lot of people. We're gonna continue working with the opposition, but for the opposition or for other people to say it's not an actual choice if we're giving the homeowners the ability to vote on, that would essentially negate everything we do here on this body.

We give the opportunity for everybody to have a voice and a vote on things, and if it passes, it passes. I'm asking for an aye vote on SB 107 to allow homeowners to be engaged to know how much their assessment fees are gonna go up so they can make that decision together, recognizing that costs are increasing.

Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 24; noes, 13. That measure passes. Senators, we are now gonna go back and lift the call on file item 46, SB 1329.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 27; noes, 11. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 94, SB 938. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 938 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to peace officers.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. Colleagues, this is a unique situation. SB 938, what I'm asking you to vote for is not what is in print today, and I've spoken to almost all of you, regarding what my amends—my commitment to an assembly will be. So, hopefully, the opposition will take this into, into consideration. I have committed to strike all the provisions out of my bill, and instead, put into the bill that current participants, ICE officers, who wish to be local law enforcement can no longer apply for a waiver. A waiver exempts them from our training to be local law enforcement.

So, the language would read that you would have to go through our training to be hired on as local law enforcement, and that's the entirety of what I'm committing to on the assembly floor, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

I have opportunity amendments at the, at the desk.

Thank you. Secretary, please read the amendments.

Amendments by Senator Strickland, set one.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you. Mad—madam president, members, this is an opportunity amendment. This gives this body an opportunity to fully fund Proposition 36, an initiative that passed all 58 counties, almost 70% of the vote. We've been pushing this for a long time. I do give a lot of my colleagues credit.

They—a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been pushing to get this fully funded. To get this fully funded, it's about $400,000,000 a year. Certainly, we can fund public safety, the most essential role of government, especially when we're talking about, you know, millions of dollars going to a legacy for a governor, and we're spending money there. We should be able to spend money to fully fund Prop 36 that had 70% of the vote.

Overwhelming Democrats, Independents, and Republicans across the state of California voted for this.

So, I'm giving you the opportunity to fully fund it today. Thank you. Hope, hope—we hope you...

Thank you. Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Yes. Respectfully request that the amendments be laid on the table and that I urge an aye vote.

Senator Ashby has moved that the amendments be laid on the table. This motion is non debatable. Senator Ashby is asking for an aye vote. Senator Strickland is asking for a no vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 29. Noes, nine. The amendments have been laid on the table. We will now return to the bill, SB 938. It has been presented.

Is there anyone that wishes to discuss or debate this bill? Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I rise in support of SB 938, and as the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety, which this bill went through, I have spoken to the author around the substantive amendments that she's proposing to make to the bill. I, I support those amendments. I urge an aye vote on this bill.

I think it helps balance the need to make sure that people that are engaged in immigration enforcement, they have proper training, and go through the same training that other peace officers in California go through.

I urge an aye vote on SB 938.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I rise in opposition to SB 938, even with the amendments, and I do appreciate the author making those amendments to only include what she—to only include what she included.

However, the issue really is that, number one, our local agencies, our law enforcement agencies here in California, whether it's the state or local or county agencies, all have the ability to train and determine what kind of training is necessary to be able to create a a workforce that reflects the community's needs. This is just further interference of that. We do not need this type of legislation.

It sends the message that we don't even trust our local law enforcement officers to be able to, to recruit and train qualified candidates. And, and so, therefore, I just ask for a no vote on SB 938.

Thank you. Senator Padilla, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president and colleagues. Rise in support. Had a number of concerns initially with this bill. Appreciate the author's commitment to taking up amends and narrowing the bill to make it operational. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Our local law enforcement agencies have worked years after years to build a trust with their community, and we wanna make sure we give an extra layer of protection that the people that we're hiring on aren't those individuals that took the thirty day training to go terrorize our communities, that they get the training—the exact training needed to actually have relationships with their community as we depend on them protecting us. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 938.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye is 30. Nose, nine. That measure passes. We are now at file item 70, SB 1359. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1359 by Senator Stern, inaccurate relating to to natural gas.

Senator Stern? You are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. Members, this bill is about saving rate payers money. Before we make big new investments in either the electric or gas system, we need to make sure we're getting maximum benefit for rate payers. We found that some of the new developments that are occurring may have mixed fuel lines coming in that are actually duplicative of one another. The CEC itself has seen stranded cost potentials upwards of 25,000,000,000 over the next fifteen years, if we don't handle this right.

We know there has been some, concern raised by some opposition amongst our friends in the utilities about some of these issues, and we've had really strong amendments out of appropriations, removing the gas decommissioning trust, removing the wasted methane rate recovery mechanism, removed a lot of the opposition based on that, and we look forward to future conversations, with our friends in the utility side to try to figure out, how not to overly micromanage these decisions about new gas build outs, and integrated into the broader rate payer process.

With that, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

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

Alan. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

roll call

Hi. Hi. Ashby. Hi. Becker.

Hi. Blaise Spear. Hi. Caballero. Cervantes.

Hi. Choi. No. Cortezi. Hi.

Dali. Durazo. Gonzales. Grayson. No.

Grove. No. Hurtado. Jones. No Laird.

Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye, McNerney.

Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Bog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez.

Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Rubio. Aye, Ciardo. No.

Smallwood Cuevas. Stern. Aye, Strickland. No. Umbert.

Aye, Volodares. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Her title, aye. Her title, aye to no. Rubio? I to no. Grayson, I to no.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Caballero. No. Dali Durazo. Richardson. Smallwood Cuevas.

Eyes twenty three, nose thirteen. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 28, SB 923. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 923 by Senator Becker in equanimity to privacy.

Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I'm really proud of our state for leading on privacy, and this is a bill to strengthen our California Consumer Privacy Act. Businesses today routinely augment customer records with data purchased from third parties to enhance targeting and profiling. For example, a retail company might collect basic information directly from the consumer, but then purchase detailed demographic data, purchasing history, other behavioral information from data brokers to create a rich profile used for marketing and pricing decisions.

While most businesses most additionally, while most businesses must provide multiple methods to submit privacy requests, online only businesses only include an email.

And then consumers get stuck in this endless loop of trying to email, say, hey, I wanted to leave my information, then they get they have to do ten, fifteen more steps, and that's not acceptable. So this bill does two things. Number one, it says you have to have a web form. You have to have another way other than just email if you're an online only business to delete your information. And second, expands the right to delete to cover all personal information a business has.

So not only the information they collect directly from you, which just might be very basic, your email address and something else, but if they've created a detailed dossier on you, they have to delete all of that information when you have a deletion request. I do understand some of my colleagues have requested a clarification that existing exemptions in the CCPA for fraud prevention and security apply to this bill. We think that's pretty clear.

The opposition, even in their own letter, concedes that presumably the existing exemptions apply, but I'm certainly willing to make clarifying changes in the assembly to avoid any confusion or misinterpret misinterpretation on that matter. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Hi.

Adegin. Hi. Ashby. Hi. Becker.

Hi. Blasphere. Hi. Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero.

No. Cervantes.

No. Cervantes.

Cervantes. Aye, Choi. Cortesi.

Aye, Dali, Durazo. Aye, Gonzales. Aye, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, Limon, Maguire, McNerney, Menjivar, Nilo, Ochoa Bog, Aye. Padilla. Aye.

Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Aye.

Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Ciardo.

Smallwood Cuevas. Stern. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern.

Aye. Strickland. Humbert. Aye. Volodares.

Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner.

Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Alvarado Gil, Caballero, Choi, aye. Dally, Grove, Jones, Nilo, Sciarto, Strickland, Volodares.

I 31, nose zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 35, SB 1098. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1098 by Senator Perez in equine to public utilities.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president and members. SB 1098 restricts investor owned utilities from collecting unlimited amounts of rate payer money through memorandum and balancing accounts that never expire. SB 1098 will strengthen oversight and accountability of these accounts by doing the following, Requiring the CPUC to only allow IOUs to create new or extend existing memorandum and balancing accounts under exceptional circumstances.

Requiring the CPUC to adopt cost sharing mechanisms for memorandum and balancing accounts or set a lower rate of return for capital spending done through these accounts than what is authorized for forecast spending, and imposing a termination date for all new or renewed balancing and memorandum accounts. At the appropriate time, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta. Adegaine.

Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blaisepeer.

Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye.

Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortesi.

Aye. Dali. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales.

Aye, Grayson, Aye, Grove, Aye, Hurtado, Aye, Jones, Aye, Laird, Aye, Limon, Aye, McGuire, Aye, McNerney, Aye, Menjivar, Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Bog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes.

Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciardo. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern?

Aye, Strickland? No. Humbert? Aye. Aye.

Volodares? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Allen? Aye. Aye. Archuleta? Aye.

Aragon? Aye. Dally?

Aye is 30. Nose nine. That measure passes. We are now at file item 30, SB 1010. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1010 by Senator Ashby and equinates a solid waste.

Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president. SB 1010 establishes a statewide extended producer responsibility program for cooling appliances to ensure refrigerants are properly recovered at the end of life. Refrigerants are among the most potent greenhouse gases and a fast growing source of emissions in California and their improper disposal is dangerous for workers. For every one refrigerator that is responsibly recycled, emissions are reduced by the equivalent of removing one and a half cars from the road for an entire year.

While appliance recycling occurs today, there is no comprehensive statewide system ensuring that refrigerants are consistently recovered appropriately.

In many communities, local governments have stepped in to offer appliance pickup programs, which has shifted cost to local rate payers. SB 1010 creates a coordinated, manufacture funded system that expands responsible disposable options and supports recyclers already doing the right thing. SB 1010 helps ensure that these harmful emissions are properly managed while creating a more accountable statewide system. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Hi. Adegin. Hi. Ashby. Alright.

Becker. Alright. Blake Spear. Alright. Cabaldon.

Alright. Caballero. Alright. Cervantes. Alright.

Choi. No. Cortesi. Alright. Dali.

Durazo. Alright. Gonzales. Alright. Grayson.

Alright. Grove. Ortado. Aye, Jones. No Laird.

Aye, Limon. McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Manjubar. Limon, Aye.

Manjubar. Aye. Nilo. No. No.

Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio.

Aye, Ciardo. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Stern? Aye.

Strickland? No. Humbert? Aye. Volodares?

No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye.

Weiner? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Dally. Grove. No.

Aye is 30. Nose nine. That measure passes. We are now at file item 55, SB 937. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 937 by Senator Gonzales, in equity to law enforcement.

Senator Gonzales, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam president and colleagues. I rise today to present SB 937, which will restrict law enforcement's use of Flashbang devices for crowd control and ban the use of Flashbangs and explosive breaching charges for immigration enforcement. Though classified as less lethal, improper use of Flashbangs has caused life altering injuries to both protesters and law enforcement, including limb amputations, internal bleeding, permanent hearing loss, and more.

In fact, I didn't wanna have to do this, Bill, but in my district, just last year, about a a year ago, border patrol agents actually used explosive breaching devices to blow out the door and windows off of a home where a mother and her two small children were inside. This was their type of, quote, unquote, immigration enforcement.

In fact, she was a US citizen. Her children both were under the age of 10 years old, and they were sleeping inside. They posed no threat to the officers and no threat to the public. SB 937 will protect citizens and officers alike by adding flash bang devices to the already existing restrictions on the use of tear gas and kinetic energy projectiles like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds.

And this does not ban law enforcement from using these devices under objectively reasonable standards or when there is an objectively reasonable situation like a threat to life or safety.

I ask for your aye vote on SB 937.

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

Allen. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Hi. Hi. Ashby. Hi. Becker.

Hi. Blake Spear. Hi. Kavaldin. Aye, Caballero.

Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi. No, Cortesi. Aye, Dali, Durazo. Aye, Gonzales.

Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. Hurtado. Jones. No.

Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menshevar.

Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. No. Padilla.

Perez. I Reyes. I Richardson. I Rubio. Aye, Ciardo.

No. Small. Stern. Strickland. Stern, aye.

Strickland, no. Umberg? Small. Molodares? No.

Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner?

Aye.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Archuleta? Aye. Dali? Grove? No.

Hurtado? Aye. Menjivar?

B ten eighty two. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1082 by Senator Niedel, and I could link to people attendance.

Senator Niedel, you are recognized on your support support bill.

Thank you, madam president, and thank you for clarifying that point. I appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 1082, which is really a technical bill to help clarify the interdistrict transfer process. Current law allows families to request interdistrict transfers when another school district may better suit the needs of their student. In practice, some families can experience very lengthy delays, sometimes a couple three months or even longer before receiving a response from the district of residence.

During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin to review their own review until the decision is released from the district of residence. However, the impact of these delays on families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education. SB 1082 streamlines this inter district transfer process by creating a concurrent review, which preserves a parent's appeal right.

They may prevent it may prevent appeal prevent two appeal hearings on the same case. The bill continues to be neutral on the interdistrict request decision.

It just helps the process work smoothly and will help reduce administrative burden. Together, these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education. I respectfully request support support. I vote.

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

Allen. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. Hi. Archuleta.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Ashby. Hi.

Becker. Blasphere. Aye, Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes.

Aye, Choi. Aye, Cortese. Aye, Dali, Durazo. Aye, Gonzales. Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Nilo, Aye, Ochoa Bog.

Aye, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio.