Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

I'll go ahead and call the Governmental Organization meeting at 1:30 PM. As you all know, the last few days have been rough. There's been so many things going on, and we're waiting for senators. We're going to call for some senators if you can, please. And we'll try and get you out as quickly as possible.

Senators, if you're listening and you have a bill in GO, if you can, we'll get you out in five minutes. We promise. Yes.

Well, welcome, Senator McNerney. We've been waiting for you. You are the star of the show today.

So good afternoon. And let's see. Noticing the absence of a quorum, we will begin as a subcommittee. We need 12 members for quorum. And this will be our last policy hearing of the legislative session.

I want to welcome Assemblymember Chen to the Governmental Organization Committee. Thank you. And Senator McNerney, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Rubio, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here to present SB 1240, which would establish the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, also known as ONE. This is a really feel good bill, folks. Every district has nonprofits. We know how effective they are in providing community focused solutions and how important they are to the broader economy.

Nonprofits are the third largest employer by wages among the key industries in California, and one in every California jobs is at a nonprofit. However, they face many hurdles navigating California's government. Current procurement and grant making process are needlessly complex and payments for services are often delayed. The business community has a Go Biz and the office of small business advocate to help companies navigate government, but nonprofits deserve the same and they don't get that.

We may, with me today to testify, is Julie Juliet Truett, Terry, from the Child Care Resource Center and and Tamara Foster from the Little Hoover Commission, and I would ask them to make the case.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio and members of the committee. My name is Juliet Terry. I'm here today on behalf of Child Care Resource Center, also known as CCRC, a family and child services nonprofit. For fifty years, CCRC has been a vital pillar of support for children and families across Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties.

CCRC is one of California's largest family serving organizations. To put our impact into scale, we administer over 800,000,000 in public contracts and philanthropic grants annually serving more than a 100,000 children, families, and early childhood educators each month. We employ over 1,300 people, maintain six office sites, 20 early learning centers, and three warehouses. So even with our robust infrastructure, we still face challenges and unnecessary hurdles when partnering with the state.

CCRC, like other nonprofits, is a business, and we face the same challenges that other businesses do, including increasing costs, economic volatility, cost pressures of doing business such as insurance, wages, tech, and benefits.

And this is part of why we strongly support SB 1240. The bill changes the status quo by establishing the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, which would give the nonprofit sector a seat at the table in state government, helping streamline contracts and ensure that state dollars reach communities effectively. California state agencies all operate under different and complex rules and processes. The current system forces nonprofits to absorb chronic late payments, redundant paperwork, and conflicting reporting requirements. This dysfunction is not just a harmless administrative headache.

It directly drains money, time, and energy away from the families that we serve. Nonprofits are not just charities. We are the cornerstone of California's economy and the true backbone of California's social safety net. Nonprofits employ 1,700,000 Californians, a tenth of our workforce. Yet, nonprofits are treated as an afterthought in state government, frequently forced to front financial risk for the state when waiting months for reimbursement.

Our sector needs a central home and voice with state government dedicated to understanding, supporting, and streamlining how the state partners with nonprofits. So just as the state leverages GoBiz to ensure the business sector thrives, we need a small nimble office to ensure that all nonprofits succeed. For these reasons, we're proud to stand with Cal nonprofits, the sponsor of the bill, and a broad coalition of over 400 nonprofits that support SB 1240, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We also have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio and members. My name is Tamar Foster, and I'm the deputy executive director of the Little Hoover Commission. The commission is an independent bipartisan oversight agency charged with investigating state operations and developing recommendations to promote to promote efficiency, economy, and improve service in our state government. In January, we released a report which examined how the state works with its nonprofit partners, and I think, you'll find through examining that report many of the challenges were reiterated in our in our findings.

So California's nonprofit partners provide essential services to millions of Californians and serve communities that government cannot reach on its own. We learned that nonprofits receive state grants, that often subsidize the delivery of these services, with their own resources, though. Navigating complex administrative and reporting systems, cost time and resources, and it leaves some some nonprofits to question whether it's even worth it to work with the state.

So currently, the state does not provide centralized guidance to organizations on grant administration issues, which creates an unlevel playing field for nonprofits who wanna work with the state. To ensure continued partnership with these organizations, the commission recommended establishing a nonprofit liaison office to integrate non the nonprofit perspective into policy making on grant administration.

Specifically, we recommended this office provide interagency coordination and serve as a resource for nonprofits who wish to partner with the state. Because SB 1240 would accomplish these measures, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Members of the audience in support?

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, Sacramento advocate for account nonprofits in support and also, expressing the support of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Juliana Tetla with San Diego Humane Society in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brooke Benetti with Kaiser Advocacy in support on behalf of the CAMEO network.

Thank you.

Hello, Noam Elroy on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District in support. Thank you.

George Cruz on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Henning on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you.

Jillian Keegan on behalf of the California Community Action Partnership Association and our statewide network in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the California Arts Advocates, the California Product Stewardship Council, and the California Animal Welfare Association representing the nonprofit animal shelters in our state, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anne Lang on behalf of Association of California Community and Energy Services and our members Project GO and Inyo Mano, advocates for community actions, are in support.

Thank you.

Fredo Cruz, on behalf of Community Resource Project in strong support. Thank you.

Noe Wu, community health for Asian American in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Theresa Rausch with Advent Group Ministries, and we're

in support of this. Thank you. Thank you. K. Anyone else?

Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any members of the public in opposition? Okay.

I'll bring it up to the committee. Any questions or comments from the committee members? Assembly member Davis Davis.

Thank you, madam Chair. First of all, I just wanna say thank you to the Little Hoover Commission and and all the great work that you've done. I think what I what I'd like to know is one of the biggest concerns, unfortunately, there are bad actors pretty much everywhere. And so they tend to put a great cloud over all of these great non profits that have done good for many years.

And we've seen, unfortunately, through the state that audits really weren't done in certain, you know, certain groups to see where the money has gone, you know, what were the results, what was the accountability.

Are you going to be helping or with this group, Senator? I think that's the most important thing is people want to know that we're gonna get strict. We're gonna be making sure that before money goes anywhere that it's accountable. And, so that those that are taking advantage of the system, we can get them off the role and hopefully then more money would come to those that are doing a great job.

Well, I I appreciate the question and, you're right. There are gonna be some bad actors. First of all, this doesn't really dispense money. It just basically allows for an organization to assist nonprofits when they try to navigate this navigate the state's system much as as companies do in GoBiz right now. So we're we're not talking about dispensing money.

The only money in question is the cost to administer the program, which is pretty modest really, 1,700,000 the first year, 1,600,000 following years. And that's a very modest investment for the magnitude of impact that nonprofits have on the state's economy. And if we can provide them that additional system assistance, I think they'll be bringing in a a larger a portion of our economy.

But in terms of enforcement, I think that's gonna be in when when grants are allocated, then that's that's when the enforcement have to be, which would be a separate issue applied to all grant seeking organizations whether they're for profit or nonprofit. Hope that answers your question.

Yeah. And I because I

had just read in argument of support that which is really what I was happy to see. Just said number three here, offers the opportunity for oversight and accountability, Recent reporting points to incidents of fraud within the world of nonprofit adding a new state level office will also provide needed oversight for contracts that are responsible for millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

So that's what I I just, you know, wanna make sure that we've got that there to bring trust back, especially when it comes to the the dollars, but also for all of those great nonprofits so that, you know, what they're they're getting the needs that they need. So thank you. Appreciate it.

Thanks for the question.

Thank you for that. Any other comments from committee members? Assembly member Soria.

I just wanted to just make some comments. Thank you so much, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. As someone that represents a region where there's few nonprofits, and especially in terms of, the infrastructure that exists in some of these rural communities, I think having something like this is gonna be critical. We've been talking all about trying to build capacity in some of these nonprofits, especially right now with immigration services Harabedian.

And the state in the last couple years has invested in organizations that historically have been able to provide services, but there are other organizations that also need this help and support, but they haven't had the ability to seek out resources from the state because maybe capacity issues or some of the challenges that they may be experiencing as a result of being very small and in much more remote locations.

So I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I'm I'll be happy to support today and and move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Solache.

Well, I wasn't gonna move the bill, but, you know, the soon to be Senator moved it before me.

Well, we don't have a quorum, so none of you

At the right time. At the at the right time, madam Chair. No. Senator, thank you for bringing this up to to today. I actually worked years of my life before coming to the literature in nonprofit world.

And so for me, this is obviously important to have this conversation. Specifically, I represent Southeast Los Angeles, and we are known to be the the the doughnut hole of of nonprofit world. So you have the Westside, the San Gabriel Valley, Long Beach. We have all this nonprofit life around us, and we're we have the scarcity of of of nonprofits. So definitely anything we could do to advance conversations in the nonprofit organizations, I definitely am supportive.

So at the right time, I'll second the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. We will when we have a quorum, we will move the bill. Will you make a close?

Well, I thank the committee for indulging me on this bill. I've got more than 300 organizations supporting this bill out there. My district sort of straddles the Central Valley and the Bay Area and there's very robust nonprofit organizations in both sides of the district. And they're telling me because of the cutback in federal funds, they're really struggling for dollars. They really don't know how to move forward.

And establishing an office in in the state of California to really facilitate that process, I think, will make a big difference and serve a lot of the people that that need it the most. So I will ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it. I again, we'll have a motion in a second when we have a quorum. Thank you. Colleagues here.

Senator Laird. Welcome, Senator. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, madam Chair and committee members. I'm here to present Senate bill 917, which supports California wine businesses at a time when the industry is facing an economic downturn and declining sales. Currently, all wine sold at farmers markers markets must be made with estate grown grapes, meaning the grapes that are used by the winery must be grown on land that the winery owns. A significant percentage of family owned wineries are excluded from farmers' markets because they source their grapes from other wine grape growers.

This bill removes the estate grown requirement to allow family winemakers and other excluded wineries to participate in farmers markets, opening more pathways for wineries to connect consumers face to face is critical for supporting both the winemakers and grape growers statewide.

This bill got off the Senate floor 37 to zero. With me today to testify is Lise Asimont, cofounder of Gott Family Wines and vice president of the board for Family Winemakers of California, and Michael Miiller with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. He's available to answer any technical questions. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Before we continue, can we establish quorum? Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We have quorum now. And to the witnesses, you have two minutes to speak and if you may begin.

I'm gonna turn my mic on first. That might be helpful. Okay. Aloha. Good afternoon, madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Lise Asimont. I serve as vice president of the board of Family Winemakers of California who a cosponsor of this bill, and I am the cofounder and winemaker of Dot Wine in Sonoma County. My family started our small winery ten years ago. We don't own vineyards. We partner with independent family run growers in the Dry Creek and Russian River Valleys, and we make our wines at a small family owned custom crush facility.

When the type 79 farmers market permit was created, I supported it. But I have never been able to use it because my wine is not a state grown, even though every grape comes from a California family farmer just down the road. Current law also allows only one winery to pour at a market at any given time. That single winery cap discourages market managers from hosting wineries at all.

By contrast, the type 84 permit for small breweries has no estate grown requirement and it lets the market manager decide who participates.

SB 917 brings that same modern framework to small wineries. At a time when our industry faces declining sales and fewer visitors, broadening how small wineries reach consumers is critical to survival. SB 917 is a simple common sense fix that supports small wineries like mine, the growers we rely on, and the farmers markets in our communities. I respectfully ask you for your aye vote on Senate bill 917. Thank you.

Any comments, Mister Miiller?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Michael Miiller. I'm with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. We are cosponsors of the bill. Thank the author for his leadership on the bill, and we're happy to cosponsor with the Family Winemakers.

And we thank the committee for its analysis of the bill. The committee announces mentions AB 2488 from 2014. That's the bill that created the law that's being amended here. I was with the author's office when we did that bill twelve years ago. Eric remembers.

And what is true that is true today. The local wineries that sell at farmer's markets are very proud of the local connection. They're they're connected to the local growers. They're connected to the local communities. They're connected to the consumers through the farmer's market.

They buy grapes from venues down the road. They grow many of them grow grapes themselves. So this really helps them to create that connection. They primarily rely on direct to consumer sales either through at the YMCA group themselves or through the farmers markets that this bill allows for. We're happy to support the bill.

We like the idea of what was true in 2014 is true today that pharma to fork is also vine to glass, and we appreciate the committee's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in support, you may come up, state your name and position. K. Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition? K.

Seeing none, questions from the committee? Okay. I have a motion by Assemblymember Solache, second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Let's see.

Madam, can you please call the oh, I'm sorry. You may close. Sorry about that.

It's okay. I really appreciate the witnesses being here. This is a a good bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. K. Now, madam secretary, can you call the roll, please?

SB 917, Senator Laird. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

You have 10 votes. The bill's on call. We're waiting for other members. Thank you, Senator. Senator Caballero, come on up.

Senator Caballero, you may begin.

Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1171. This bill would make any private entity that contracts with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE, ineligible to receive a state funded loan or grant, and the bill is prospective. Since 06/06/2025, ICE has conducted, as we all know, military style immigration raids, arrest, and harassment at California worksites, homes, and public places.

Media reports and civil rights complaints as well as videos follow following ICE's increased enforcement presence have documented instances of excessive use of force, unlawful detention, racial profiling, mistaken detention, assault, and murder.

The indiscriminate, brutal, and unconstitutional nature of ICE's immigration raids have wrecked havoc on California and California families. Federal government's refusal to host hold ICE accountable has emboldened them to act without fear of consequences, and ICE's enforcement tactics disregard California's commitment to public safety and respect for public order. While California cannot stop ICE from conducting raids in our state, we do have the ability to decide how to best spend our state tax dollars.

As such, California has an obligation to ensure its resources are used to protect the residents of this 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. With me to testify today is Hector Pereyra, political manager at the Inland Coalition for Immigration Justice.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members of the committee. Name is Hector Pereyra, political manager for the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, a regional coalition of a little bit over 40 organizations that represent immigrant communities in San Bernardino and Riverside County. Through our work, we have extensive experience documenting the abuses that occur at private for profit detention and documented ICE's lawlessness. We've studied the grave negative impacts that they have on the people detained and local communities. ICE facilities are notorious for inhumane conditions and systemic human rights violations.

In 2025 alone, at least 31 people died in ICE custody, the highest number in two decades or since the creation of Department of Homeland Security. And to be clear, these deaths are the results of the purposeful and 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 in local waterways, a significant problem, for example, in the city of Adelanto where there's a processing center. They divert critical resources such as water and electricity away from local communities, and they cut off revenue and economic opportunities.

Other corporations are unlikely to invest in these communities because they are overburdened by political private detention by private detention, and they are unappealing. And this cripples local economies, making them reliant on an industry that only harms them. California must take a strong stance and protect our communities against these abuses and 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. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? K. Members of the audience in support? K.

Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any members of the public in opposition? Okay. Bringing you back up to the committee. Any questions from committee members?

K. I have a motion by Assemblymember Pacheco. Okay. Assemblymember Solache.

Just briefly, Senator, thank you for bringing this bill. These rates are day two of what happened in LA, happened in my district. My community continues to live in fear. My community continues to be afraid. So I think anything we could do to send a message that these rates are inhumane, that, you know, there's a process for doing things, and it's not the way of doing things.

And so for me, my community is highly immigrant and and probably also undocumented. So we will make sure to support your bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? K. I have a motion by Assemblymember Pacheco, second by Assembly member Solache. K. Would you like to close?

Thank thank you very much for for your comments. I much appreciated and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator. K. Madam secretary, can you call the roll, please?

SB 1171 Caballero. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you. Thank you. The bill is on call.

We'll wait for absent members. Thank you.

We're just waiting for Senator Rubio.

Yes. While we're waiting, we can do the consent calendar. Madam secretary?

I need a motion and a second for the consent calendar.

A motion by Assemblymember Fong, second by Assemblymember Davies. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

Items on consent are item one, ACR 192 Ta. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee, recommend consent.

Item number seven, SB 1294 Senator Rubio, the motion is do passed, recommend consent.

Item number eight, SB 1394 Senator Rubio, the motion is do passed to Appropriations, recommend consent.

[roll call]

Okay, we'll we're going to leave that item open for absent members. Thank you. We're just waiting for one more.

Yes. Can we open the roll on

I need a motion.

Senator Rubio.

So I have three. Which one would you like me to begin with?

Let's start with 1195.

Only because I need to invite my witnesses to join me.

And encourage my opposition to not show up.

You may begin and your witness has two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, madam Chair and members of this committee. We really appreciate this opportunity to present this bill before you. I wanna begin by accepting the committee clarifying amendments. And again, this is an important bill that will provide additional revenue options for entertainment, conventions, and sporting venues.

This will also add planned facilities to the list of tight house exemptions located in the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego. The goal of SB 1195 is very simple. Promotes consistency, fairness, and economic opportunity for the specifies facilities while preserving the core protections of the California tight house laws. I would like to invite my witness to say a few words if I may. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, madam Chair, madam vice Chair, Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf. There we go. Now we should be good. Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you, this afternoon. Kirk Kimmelshue here today on behalf of Legends Global as well as a number of our venue partners in the bill that Senator Rubio mentioned.

Pleased to be with you. Also, answer any questions. I think to the senator's point, we've really, really appreciated the engagement from a number of committee members, and stakeholders in addition to the chairwoman and her committee staff, and thank you very much for the efforts on the committee analysis as well as the committee amendments, which the Senator mentioned we are taking.

The goal there is really to make sure that we are clarifying current law on the practices that can and cannot happen at these facilities that do obtain a tide house exemption under the law. And for those reasons, we think the bill is a really practical step forward to get specific venues in place to have these exemptions.

And as the Senator mentioned, really try to generate some economic opportunity in these areas, and just really appreciate the conversations that are continuing, as we try to really refine the bill and make sure that the venues that are in the bill match the goal of the legislature. So with that, we'd really encourage your aye vote. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Members of the audience in support?

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members. Madison Dwelley on behalf of the California Travel Association in support.

Thank you. Any other members in support? Witnesses in opposition?

Seeing none, any members of the audience in opposition?

I'm not in opposition. Chris Walker on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association to remove our opposition. And we'd like to thank the author, the Committee Chair, the committee staff, everybody who worked with the Craft Brewers Association. And the amendments that were taken make the bill a much better statute. So thank you, and we just wanna memorialize that we're now okay with the bill.

Thank you. Any other anyone else other members of the audience in opposition?

Or removing opposition?

Nope.

Members of the committee, any questions?

I have a motion by Assemblymember Solache, second by Assemblymember Soria. Senator Rubio, you may close.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, this is just simple bill that will help boost economic activity in much needed areas and bring tax dollars to our local communities. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

SB 1195, Rubio. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

We have the votes, but we'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you.

And next bill, 1220

eight.

Thank you. You may begin, and your witnesses will have two minutes each to speak.

Thank you again, madam Chair, members of the committee. First of all, I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments one and two with a slight tweak address with committee staff. Regarding amendment number three, collectively, we agreed to hold off on that amendment in order for us to have further discussions with Caltrans just to ensure that we're on the same page, again, guided by your committee. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important bill. The goal of SB 1228 is just it's simple.

It allows a small number of existing outdoor advertising displays to continue operating under current law rather than abruptly shutting down due to statutory sunset. Without legislative action, a handful of legally established LED messaging centers will be forced out of compliance. This creates unnecessary disruption for local governments, businesses, and workers who rely on these displays. These displays generate critical local revenue that support essential services like law enforcement, senior services, youth programs, and so many other things that our local communities need and deserve.

So if I may, I would like to turn it over to my witnesses to present.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Yeah. Thank you, madam Chair, members of the committee. Jeff Sievers on behalf of In N Out Burger today. We have one of those signs that was legally permitted during the redevelopment agency. And, unfortunately, with the sunset, we would be forced to tear that down.

So we'd like to begin just by thanking, you know, the the author and her staff who've worked diligently on this for the last few years. Your committee staff, the governor staff, and Caltrans all have worked very hard to get to this solution, which, as the governor called for last year, a more permanent solution for these remaining 35 plus or minus signs.

So, we are very supportive and happy to answer any questions, but I think this is a very limited targeted, thing that's gonna help local communities and and companies like us keep this keep these signs. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members of the committee. John Doherty on behalf of Wyand Gardens Casino. I will echo the thanks. We've been dealing with this issue since redevelopment, actually closed down more than a decade ago. I know Eric has been, like, a a expert on this issue.

We have been working closely since the veto with the governor's office. We're simply looking for the cleanest, most logical way to allow signs that have been here, for decades to continue in the shape that they were in. And we are like, in our in our situation, Hawaiian Gardens Casino is in a is in an economically depressed area. We provide over 60 to 70% of the local revenue for the city to operate on, and this sign helps us helps the business thrive.

So thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in support? Okay. Seeing none, any, witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Audrey Rytajcak on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. We really appreciate the author and the committee's willingness to engage with us on this issue, and we're continuing to work with them collaboratively, with

the author and the sponsors. We understand the unique circumstances that give rise to this bill with these signs, but we're just as the outdoor advertising industry. We're always concerned with any sort of exemption and what that could mean for things in the future. But we believe there are some opportunities to develop a broader and more permanent solution to address this issue that we're working on, and we spoke with Eric about and with the author and sponsors.

So hopefully, we can continue to work on that, and thank everyone for their time.

Thank you. Any other members of the audience and opposition? K. Hearing and seeing none, any members of the committee with questions? Assemblymember Salote.

Thank you, madam Chair. I appreciate our author working with our outdoor billboard folks. At the same time, I think In N Out as a clear example of a great business in our state that not only serves quality and great food, but has a great business, you know, and work ethic that you all do for communities.

I'm so proud of the work you all do, and that gives Californians and everyone throughout our nation, not only delicious food to to enjoy, but obviously, anything we can do to support your business and the time that California support our businesses, I'm so happy to support this bill. Thank you.

And with that, I'll move the bill.

Thank you. I have a motion by Assembly Member Solace, second by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Okay. Senator, you may close. Thank

you. And I appreciate the words of Assemblymember Solace. And I think some of us experienced I believe it was you as well, Solace, when we were on the city council and we dealt with redevelopment and some of the lost revenues that our cities had to endure at the time. So we're just trying to fix a problem that is unusual, very specific, and also will maintain transportation safety protections, which is, I believe, everyone's goal. And we appreciate your time.

And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. K. Madam secretary, may you can you call the roll, please?

SB 1228, Senator Rubio. The motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Rubio, aye. Rubio, aye. Davies?

Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye.

Berman, Brian Carrillo. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Dixon?

Dixon aye Fong Fong aye Gabriel Gabriel aye Gibson Mesito Mesito aye McKinner Wen Nguyen, Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, Aye. Ramos.

Ramos, Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, Aye. Solace.

Solace, Aye. Soria. Aye. Soria, Aye. Ta Ta, Aye.

Aye.

Valencia. Wallace? Aye. Wallace, Aye.

The bill has enough votes, but we'll leave that roll open for absent members.

And our last bill, Senator Rubio SB 1398.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Happy to present SB 1398 Green Globe Certification. SB 1398 is a straightforward update to ensure California's green building requirements reflect the reality of today's market.

Under current law, state agencies are required to obtain green building certification for new construction and major renovations starting in 2024. However, the state statute effectively recognizes only one system despite the existence of other nationally recognized widely used alternatives.

This creates a practical problem. By identifying only one certification pathway, the state reduces flexibility, and it also may increase project cost and excludes comparable frameworks that deliver similar environmentally friendly, and performance outcomes. So if I may, I would like to turn it over to my eyewitnesses to present. Thank you.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, madam Chair and members of the committee for your time and the opportunity to speak today. My name is Stephen Ayers, and I'm the currently serving as the Interim CEO of the Green Building Initiative. As the former 11th architect of The United States Capitol and a longtime leader in architecture, construction, building operation, and preservation, I've spent my career advancing high performing, resilient, and sustainable buildings. This is what brings me before you today in support of 1398.

Through my years of experience, I understand firsthand the value of establishing clear performance expectations while also preserving flexibility and competition in the marketplace.

California's current statutory framework for state infrastructure projects effectively limits agencies and project teams to a single green building certification system. While LEED has played an important role in advancing sustainable building practices, the result of this framework is a de facto monopoly that restricts choice and limits competition.

Deemed equivalent to lead by the US General Services Administration in 2013 and again in 2024, along with several states, Green Globes is a nationally recognized third party building certification program grounded in rigorous standards and collaborative assessment.

This legislation is not about replacing one system with another. It's about ensuring that California's public agencies have access to competitive equivalent options that can achieve the same sustainability goals.

By recognizing Green Globes along with LEED, the state can foster innovation, encourage competition, and reduce unnecessary barriers. Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin.

Madam Chair and members of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. For the record, my name is Jen Mason. I am a California resident and Associate Principal with McKinsey, an architecture and engineering firm delivering public and private projects across California and the West Coast. I am in here in support of SB 1398, grounded in a principle to Californians know well that California does not follow the pack. It sets the pace.

For decades, California has led by pairing ambition with accountability, backing high standards with enforcement and regular code updates. SB 1398 continues that tradition. It gives public agencies more flexibility without lowering California's performance expectations.

It preserves those standards while modernizing compliance by allowing three Green Globes as an alternative to LEED gold and two Green Globes as an alternative to LEED silver. At the federal level, the US GSA reaffirmed Green Globes in 2024 as equivalent to LEED for high performance public buildings.

State and local jurisdictions are also increasingly recognizing multiple certifications side by side. Importantly, SB 3098 fits with California's existing framework. The 01/26/2026 compliance interpretation confirms that projects using green globes must still comply with title 24 CalGreen, and use CEC's approved energy modeling and apply the most stringent standard when requirements differ.

From a delivery perspective, Green Globes emphasizes early engagement with a third party assessor, which can improve coordination, reduce late stage conflicts, and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.

This is now hypothetical, more than 1,000,000,000 square feet certified nationwide, including ten year projects in California.

I respectfully urge for a aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in support? Please come up, state your name and position, please.

Hi. Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors. I'm here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Audrey Rytajcak on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and Boma, California in support. Thank you.

Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors Association in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Dawn Koepke. On behalf of the Green Building Initiative, the sponsor of the bill as well as the American Subcontractors Association of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in opposition?

Yes. Come on.

Excuse me. Good afternoon, Chair Rubio and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Kristen Shariyachi, and I'm here on behalf of the US Green Building Council in respectful opposition to SB 1398 as written. I wanna be clear that USGBC's concern today is not competition between green building certification systems. We support strong green building policies across the country, and we recognize that many certifications can solve different things and provide different purposes.

However, California's state building policy is not simply a procurement process. As mentioned before, it's a leadership framework. This bill only applies to state agency new buildings or major reconstruction projects, which are already required to receive a rating determination via certification. Current law also does not limit, but gives the Department of General Services the ability to evaluate and add additional certification programs.

This DGS pathway includes a technical and evidence based determination step that will show if any added certification is equivalent or higher to the standards that currently exist for outcomes, applicability, and alignment with California's progressive goals.

Currently, as it stands, SB 1398 skips this process of evaluation and determines with the DGS and fast tracks the approval for only one certification system. This step matters because California currently requires state buildings to go beyond the minimum code compliance, and state agencies are also working towards operational net zero goals of 2035.

An additional governance concern that the opposition has is if one certification system can receive a special legislative pathway around the DGS, others will understandably ask for the same treatment in the future, and that is not the most efficient way to govern technical building standards.

USGBC has not heard of issues with the DGS process until this time, and thus, we are curious if this issue has only been experienced by Green Globes and therefore one third party rating system.

If this is the case, we do encourage further conversation with the DGS and legislators.

However, we do not believe the solution is to bypass the DGS for just one certification. For these reasons, USGBC respectfully asked for a no vote unless the bill is amended to still require an equivalency determination reviewed by DGS before official approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other members of the audience in opposition?

Okay. Seeing none, bringing it back up to the committee.

Any questions? Assembly member Alvarez.

Thank you. I have some questions. This alternative Green Globes, we're all, I think, very familiar with LEED. So this is an alternative to LEED. And I'm curious to the opposition's point.

Have you attempted to work with DGS? This would be for Green Building Institute. You're the Green Globe issuer, I assume. Have you attempted to work with DGS to try and get your certification accepted for construction of state buildings?

Thank you. Go ahead.

Yes. We have. We have worked with DGS for over a year, provided very significant amount of information, and DGS tells us that they simply don't have the capacity to do an analysis like this. And so what we've testified to today that the General Services Administration, who is the DGS for the entire Federal Government, has done this analysis in 2013, and they did it again in 2014. And in both times, they say these rating systems are equivalent.

When you say the rating systems are equivalent, the LEED rating system of gold, platinum, and all of their rating systems compared to your two globes versus one globe rating system?

That is correct.

And they the Federal Government currently utilizes this in some of their buildings?

That is correct.

What would you say is roughly the percentage of utilization between LEED and Green Globes buildings?

I'm not sure. I know the rough percentage of which is which. But it's The Federal Government certainly does it, and there are a number of states that have adopted Green Globes as equivalent as well.

And those states adopted the same equivalency model?

That's correct.

Is there anyone from DGS here today?

Alright. The what is the in terms of your expected outcome if this bill were to become law, is it the expectation that DGS then would be able to call upon you for certification? Like, how would that actually work if this were to be approved?

So architects and designers that are designing projects for DGS, they will have the ability to design those projects in accordance with LEED or design those projects in accordance with Green Globes, making a professional decision of which they think is best. Today, they really only do that with LEED. They don't have another option. So this would give them the option to make a decision, project based decision on which certification system is best in that case.

So given the analysis and thank you to the committee for the analysis on page four, SB 416 Laird from 2023 now requires any new building to have LEED Gold or higher certification. It is your expectation now that if there were to be a project that comes forward for either major renovation or a new building for the state, that if they choose to use your globe system or certification process, what's the equivalent of a LEED Gold or higher?

So, as I mentioned, the green three green globes is equal and alternative to LEED gold, and two green globes is an alternative to LEED silver.

So under that legislation, buildings must be LEED gold or higher. So it'd have to be three green globes, which is your highest, it sounds like?

That is correct.

Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

And just for some clarification, DGS will make the final determination on this. We can give you more information if you like.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alvarez.

Any other comments from committee?

Okay. Hearing none, I need a motion and a second. Who?

Assemblymember Gibson makes a motion. Assemblymember Macedo is a second. And before we vote. Members, we have other bills to dispense with so please do not leave.

Can I can I close on this one?

Yes. You may close.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I just wanna put a fine point on the and on some of the comments that were made right now. So again, this does not weaken any of the standards, but it simply allows a different system that again, it's not a mandate. They just have two options versus one, and they could always choose sleep.

No one's saying that they don't have to, but again, it's an equitable, a comparable benchmark for sustainability and keeping our high standards in California. And with that, I would request and I will request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam secretary, can you call the roll, please?

SB 1398, Senator Rubio. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

[roll call]

The bill has enough votes, but we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. And then we'll go back to--

Madam Chair. I don't know if there's such thing as personal privilege, but if I can say something okay before the Senator leaves. I don't think it's every day that you have two sisters that are serving the Assembly and the state senate. They are G.O. chairs.

I think it's a great accomplishment. This morning, I went to the Latina Leads breakfast, and I was asked why is it important to have Latina serve in in leadership. And I think it just matters when I have other women that serve along me as a male. I think it brings perspective. It brings lived experiences.

And I just wanna acknowledge our amazing women that we serve too within the legislature. And so I just wanna acknowledge our two sisters that happen to be the two G.O. chairs as well. So thank you. Thank you, madam--madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. That was nice. Thank you. Don't start, Mr. Gabriel. Thank you. Opening the roll on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call].

Okay. Consent calendar is out. File item number two, SB 17. [Roll Call]. And we will leave it open for absent members. File item number three, SB1171. [Roll Call].

Then they'll have the votes, but we'll leave it open for absent members.

File item four SB 1195, Rubio, correcting the roll--the motion to do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarez. [Roll Call].

That bill has the votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. SB 1228. [Roll Call].

That bill has the votes, and we will leave the roll open for absent members. Ok. And I need a motion on file item six, McNerney. Motion by Solache. Second by Soria.

SB 1240, Senator McNerney. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill has the votes. We'll leave the roll open. Ramos on McNerney's bill.

Opening the roll on SB 1240 for Assemblymember Ramos. SB 1390. [Roll Call].

Ok. That goes out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members, and that's it. I think yes. We'll wait a few more minutes for absent members. Thank you, committee members.

Can we open the roles for Assemblymember Valencia, please? Or Assemblymember Nguyen?

Opening the roll on file item number six, SB 1240, McNerney. [Roll Call]. Starting with the consent calendar.

File item number three, SB 1171, Caballero. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call].

File item number four, SB 1195, Rubio. [Roll Call]. File item number five, SB 1228, Rubio [Roll Call].

File item number nine, SB 1398, Rubio. [Roll Call].

Ok. We're leaving it open for a few more minutes.

Okay. We'll go ahead and adjourn at 02:55pm. Thank you.