Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 08/05/2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 325 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. We encourage the public to provide a written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website at Apro.assembly.ca.gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch on a livestream. We will accept any public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. Testimony on any such bill will be limited to statement of name, organization, and position on the bill unless I say otherwise. The committee will allow no more than forty minutes of testimony in total.

When you came into the room, you saw the rules. We expect everyone to be polite and cordial. And if you violate these rules, we have the authority to remove you from the hearing today. Okay. Let's establish a quorum.

Here.

Here.

Wicks?

Wicks present. Hoover?

Hoover present.

Arambula? Calderon? Peloza? Peloza present.

Here.

Fong present.

Dixon? Dixon present? Fong?

Mark Gonzalez? Mark Gonzalez present? Krell? Pacheco? Pellerin?

Present.

Celace present.

Pellerin present. Sharp Collins? Solache?

Ta? Ta present. Tangipa? Tangipa present.

Great, we have a quorum. And I want to now dispense with the consent calendar. We will take the bills up in the consent calendar in two motions. The first is do pass to consent. It applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules.

We have a motion on this. The motion is second, madam secretary.

Following all Senate bills, consent calendar, 892 Grove, 902 Grayson, 990 Grove, 994 Cabaldon, 1008 Ochoa Bogh, 1017 Reyes, 1100 Smallwood Cuevas, 1168 McNerney, 1188 Archuleta, 1206 Committee on Insurance, 1207 Laird, 1253 Laird, 1316 Smallwood-Cuevas, 1324 Blakespear, 1381 Cervantes, 1389 Dahle, 1405 Smallwood-Cuevas, 1410 Limon, 1420 Richardson, 1427 Committee on Public Safety, 1431 Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, 1432 Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, 1436 Committee on Revenue and Taxation, 1444 Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement, 1445, Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development, and 1447 Committee on Health.

Those are out on a roll call. The second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in the committee but are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with the Assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this? We have a motion and a second, madam secretary.

Following our Senate bills, consent calendar part two, motions do pass. 99 Blakespear, 299 Cabaldon, 331 Menjivar. 479 Arreguin,

505 Richardson, 546 Grayson, 561 Blakespear, 692 Arreguin, 849, Weber Pierson, 917 Laird, 950 Weber Pierson, 965 Blakespear, 993 Ochoa Bogh, 1003 Grayson, 1048 Becker, 1072 Committee on Housing, 1085 Durazo, 1116 Caballero, 1148 Niello, 1153 Caballero, 1195 Rubio, 1218 Arreguin, 1228 Rubio, 1311 Wahab.

1375 Cortese, 1398 Rubio, SB 958 Weber Pierson, do pass as amended.

Yes. SB 958 Weber Pearson do pass as amended to add a shadow to the list of building height related impacts that CEQA cannot treat as significant environmental impacts.

And SB 1261 Laird do pass as amended?

That's do pass as amended to add an urgency clause. Great. Those are out on an a roll call. And with that, we have Senator Weber Pierson up to present SB 999. And you can begin when you're ready, Senator.

SB 999. Yes. Yeah. Is that what I said? I don't know.

Okay. But, yeah, that's the one you're presenting.

Good morning, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 999. I accept the proposed committee amendments to SB 999 that changes the delayed due date in this bill from June to April 1.

SB 999 delays the annual publication date of the health minimum essential coverage individual mandate report from March to April 1 so that the report will be more complete and capture relevant data while still allowing full consideration of the report's finding during the legislative's budget process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And, here here in in support is Christine Smith from Access Health. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Christine Smith with Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition working for quality and affordable health care for all Californians. We're proud to support this bill. Following the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credits, it's important to note that there are exemptions for this mandate, including of health care coverage is considered unaffordable, exceeding 8.05% of the household income in the 2026 taxable year.

This bill will provide more accurate information to the legislature about the individual mandate and uninsured people in California and have minor costs to f to the franchise tax board to include additional information.

It will also support the legislature to fully take this information into consideration during the budget process. For these reasons, we support.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room who wish to express support? Do we have any formal opposition? Any additional opposition? We'll bring it back to committee.

Any questions? No. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

That is out on our. Thank you very much. That is out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon not voting and Mister Hoover voting no. And next up, Senator Weber Pierson, we have SB 869.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 869, a measure that focuses on transparency, consumer awareness, and public health. Excessive added sugar consumption is linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, in addition to other chronic illnesses that continue to impact millions of Californians.

Sugary beverages remain one of the largest sources of added sugar in the American diet, yet many consumers do not realize how much sugar these drinks contain when ordering them at restaurants or drives-through. SB 869 would require chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to place a clear added sugar warning icon next to beverages that contain extremely high levels of sugar, specifically those that contain 100% or more of the recommended daily value in addition to providing a brief factual statement explaining what the symbol means.

SB 869 does not ban any product. It does not restrict consumer choice. It simply provides transparent information so that Californians can make decisions that are best for themselves and their families. My staff and I and sponsors are continuing to work with the opposition to come with the resolution and are in continued conversations and hope to come to a resolution prior to the bill coming to the floor.

This bill takes a practical and balanced approach by applying only to large chain restaurants that already standardized menu offerings across multiple locations. California has been a leader in public health and consumer transparency, and SB 869 continues that tradition with a straightforward evidence-based policy. This bill has minor and absorbable costs to both the Department of Public Health and local health enforcement officers. Today with me is Judith Gutierrez with the American Heart Association and Cher Gonzalez with the American Diabetes Association. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. And you can begin.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Judith Gutierrez, and I serve as the State Government Relations Director for the American Heart Association. I'd like to start off by saying thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Senate Bill 869 and the importance of providing clear icons on menus to identify standard beverage menu items with high levels of added sugar.

SB 869 takes an important step towards improving the dietary environment for Californians and protecting them from early risk factors tied to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. Restaurants are a frequent source of food for American families, with families dining out at an average of four to five times each week, but restaurant foods can contain high levels of salt and added sugars, including sugary drinks that can exceed the recommended daily limit of 50 grams of sugar in a single serving.

This bill does not restrict choice. It simply ensures transparency, giving consumers the information they need to take control of their own health. Californians deserve to have clear, easy-to-understand information at the point of selection. For these reasons, we urge your support for SB 869. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Cher Gonzalez, on behalf of my client, the American Diabetes Association, a proud co-sponsor of this important bill. I wanna highlight just a few items of why sugar labels on sugary beverages is so important, and the biggest reason is because liquid sugar has a unique impact on the human body. It is uniquely dangerous to the human body. Just one sugary beverage a day increases your risk of type 2 diabetes by 26%.

By giving people the information about added sugars--and that's-- I wanna go over added sugar, not total sugar, because the restaurants-- the chain restaurants are currently providing information on total sugar, not added sugar. Now why does that matter? Because our U.S. dietary guidelines are only about added sugars. Having a sugary beverage with added sugar increases your risk of type 2 diabetes by 26%, and yet we are not providing that information to adults and our kids.

I don't know about you, but I have college kids and kids who go to high school. Kids who go to college after school, what do they do? They go get a refreshing beverage. They're thirsty, and they have no idea the amount of sugar they're putting into their body in liquid form. Now, why is liquid-form sugar so dangerous to the human body? It's because it overwhelms the pancreas, it overwhelms the liver, and as a result, it spikes insulin in a way that food does not. We thank the author for being such a champion to fight and end type 2 diabetes in this state, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room that wish to express support?

Madam Chair and members, Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter with the American College of Cardiology, in strong support.

Great. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are here in an oppose unless amended position. The good news is we don't disagree on the policy. We're absolutely willing to disclose this information.

Where we stand at a standstill is a little bit over the method. This committee and the Assembly Health Committee spent a lot of time last year working on a framework for allergen disclosure. Our thoughts on that was to adopt a system that would allow flexibility in how you disclose this information to restaurants, whether you're in a fast food restaurant, a full service restaurant, a deli, or the wide variety of restaurant concepts. Again, we're mandated to disclose the information under that law.

We're looking to build upon that law. A lot of the thought in this side of the Legislature last year was to have a central collecting place off of the menu because we have such limited space on menus and it's costly to replace them all the time. And here we are with the bill in front of you that does the onerous on-menu approach. And I'll just point out this. We're days away from the last menu labeling bill taking place July 1st. So we just got through that one.

It speaks to the value of the process that you set up last year, and that we like, and is workable. And again, it mandates disclosure, it provides clear and conspicuous posting for guests to know the information exists, and it does it in an operationally, you know, manageable manner for us. And so we'd ask you to hold the bill. Our amendments came back yesterday-- or, pardon me. The feedback on our amendments came back yesterday, and we find ourselves here today not landing the plane yet. So we'd ask for a little bit more time to get this settled. Thank you.

Any other folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay. Let's bring it back to committee. Any questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close? And I would also just ask you to respond to the opposition as well.

Thank you. Really appreciate the ability to present this bill today and for those who provided the motion and the second. As I stated in my opening, we are continuing to work with opposition, understand some of their concerns. One of the sticking points is we're trying to figure out what will happen with drive-through menus because you cannot have a QR code on a drive-through menu and expect for someone to say, I want to be able to have the sugar information, and then somebody from inside that facility would have to come outside to give that person who's driving through that information. So that's really kind of the sticking point.

Like I explained to them yesterday, the last thing you wanna do is to have somebody go through the drive-through menu, then get to the counter or the teller and they see how much sugar is in there, and they say, I don't want this drink. So all of that stuff needs to be available, especially at the drive-through at the point of purchase. So we're still trying to work that out.

I don't think that that method works very well for customers who are ordering, for customers who are waiting in line as the drive-through continues to get longer and longer because people are trying to either do a QR code or wait for someone to come out and give them the information, and I don't think it's really good for the actual establishments who will be actually making drinks and then having people, once they get up to the front and can see how much sugar is in there because they're handed that nutritional information, say, I don't want this.

Go back and make me something else. And so we're still working on the drive-through issue, but completely understand their concerns and I'm committed to make sure that we try to get to a landing place before it gets to the floor.

Appreciate that. I appreciate what you're doing here. I think having more information on sugary drinks is critical for a host of reasons that were expressed. Also, would love for you to continue to work with the opposition just on this sort of implementation of how you would actually make it a reality, make it useful. So just appreciate your leadership here.

And with that, the bill is out with Republicans not voting, with Ms. Dixon and Mr. Tangipa voting no. Thank you. And with that, we have Mr. Laird up next. You have three bills before us, I believe: SB 952, 931, and 1288. And you can begin when you're ready, and I'll let you pick your poison. Which one you wanna do first?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the word poison. My bills are just very healthy and hearty. And I'm--

We love your bills, Mr. Laird.

Oh, we're not supposed to. I'm gonna go in numeric order. So the first one is Senate Bill 931.

And Senate Bill 931 reauthorizes the essential mitigation fund or the SMF for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant through 2028. When the legislature extended the life of the Diablo plant in 2022, they extended it from 2025 to 2030.

At the time, an agent state agency said we can take care of dealing with the unitary tax or the mitigation fund. And then later said, oh, it's completely depreciated. We can't do that. This bill addresses that. The amendments from the energy committee are the reason I'm presenting it here because they removed all costs from the rate payers or the general fund.

Basically, it says that the money that would be in the mitigation fund would come from existing PG&E funds. The second amendment said this would just be for two years. And that leaves three years still to be addressed, but there's an expectation that there might be a bill at some point to extend the Diablo Canyon plant till 2045.

Whenever that bill comes, if it does, it's our hope that we would wrap this into it as a mitigation. If it doesn't come, I'll be back to do the other three years.

And I should clarify because there was one opposition letter or letter with concerns that said the plant had already been extended to 2045. The Federal Government has approved extending to 2045, but the state government has not. There will have to be a bill in front of the legislature to extend from 2030 to 2045.

So with that, this bill addresses the issue. No increase to rates, no increase or additional cost to the general fund. At the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Okay. Anyone in the room wish to express support?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to express opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?

Just I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Sorry. Did someone have a question?

No. I just wanted to make a comment. Senator, I know how hard you've been working on this issue, and I just wanna thank you for all your work on this. I know it's so important for California consumers to be able to have this move forward. So I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Thank you.

Thank you. That is out on a B roll call with Mister Hoover not voted Mister Hoover and Miss Sharp Collins not voting. Thank you. And whichever bill you like to present next.

And the next bill is Senate Bill 952, which deals with the State Water Project Clean Energy goals. I'd like to start by acknowledging the technical amendment that I will be making, which we have been working with your staff on. This bill is sponsored by the state water contractors.

It provides the Department of Water Resources with operational flexibility to achieve a 100% clean energy procurement for the state water project by 2035. The bill will have cost savings for the water project and will reduce the costs that are passed down to rate payers.

It has no registered opposition, and it's received bipartisan support. With me today is Jonathan Young on behalf of the State Water Contractors who's just available to answer technical questions. At the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support?

Any opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.

Any questions? No.

We have a motion second. Would you like to close?

Just thank you. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. And that's SB952, and that's out on an a roll call. And your last bill, SB 1288.

Thank you very much. This bill ensures that non probate assets make it into the hands of the individuals and nonprofits as intended by establishing a clear framework for notification and verification of beneficiaries, and it would eliminate barriers to access funds. This is one of those rare bills where I've been surprised because people walk out of crowds and thank me.

There are situations where beneficiaries are not notified for a number of years, and they don't have access to the money that was left to them in probate. The Judicial Council has reported no anticipated costs.

Here to answer any technical questions is Juliana Tetlow representing Cal Nonprofits. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

You can be oh, did you wanna say anything?

Thank you. Juliana Tetlow on behalf of Cal Nonprofits in strong support. Here to answer any technical questions if the committee has any.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wish to express support?

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing here to express support for SB 1288 on behalf of the cosponsor of San Diego Humane Society and also the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Joanne Bettencourt representing SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. First of all, we'd like to thank the author, his staff and the sponsors for the continued dialogue and their willingness to listen to our concerns. We believe that we're very close to resolution, so we'd like to continue working with them.

We have provided policy amendments that would remove our opposition. We're waiting for feedback from the author and the sponsors and the author staff. We believe that is forthcoming, so we appreciate that. But as of right now, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. Align myself's align myself with the comments of my colleague at SIFMA. We are working productively with the author and the sponsors to get to the finish line on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for committee?

Nope. Do we have a motion?

We have motion and a second.

Great. Would you like to close?

Just I appreciate the testimony, and our concern is we are working. We have taken one amendment. We're open to others. We don't want to dilute the effect of the bill. We wanna make sure it still accomplishes the purpose and we are working with them within that.

The one amendment we took allowed an extra year for this to go to move, which was a concern and and I think they were pleased with, and we will continue the conversations. And with that, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. Well, thank you, Mister Laird. That is out with Republicans not voting, with Mister Hoover voting no and Miss Dixon voting aye.

Okay.

Mister Allen, you're next. Oh, no. Miss I'm sorry. Sorry. Mister Grayson's ahead of you.

He was sitting over there in like, the peanut gallery.

I did not oh, and I'm sorry. Miss Durazo, you're here. Come on up. Sorry, Mister Allen.

Two false alarms there.

Miss Durazo, you are presenting SB1371.

Turn your mic on, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. SB 1371 ensures that solid waste companies cannot use force majeure clauses to suspend service during a labor dispute in order to undermine a lawful worker strike. As proposed to be amended, 1371 only applies to contracts entered into after enactment of the bill. Solid waste collection is an essential public health service that our communities rely on every single day.

With minimal cost to the state, this bill protects the integrity of essential services, supports fair labor practices, and ensures that communities are not caught in the middle of these disputes.

With me here today to testify in support of the bill is Matt Broad, Teamsters California.

Madam Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California, the proud sponsors of SB 1371. I'll be brief and just say that these provisions, when they include labor disputes, tend to actually prolong strikes because cities lose their ability to enforce liquidated damages or penalties that they would otherwise use to bring waste haulers back to the table and stay true to their service obligations.

So with that, this bill creates fair rules that benefits the public, workers, and local governments. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional support in the room?

Any opposition?

We will bring it back to committee. Any questions?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Ask for aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That's out on a b roll call with Mister Ta not voting. Now Mister Grayson, you are presenting SB 1014.

Oh, can you turn the mic on, please? Is it on or?

There we go. Good morning, madam chair and members. SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of preliminary application, provide a good faith estimate and list of any on-site off-site improvements. This bill has no state cost. And with me to testify is Raymond Contreras representing SPUR and California YIMBY.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the sponsors of the bill, California YIMBY and SPUR, here to answer any technical questions on SB 1014. Thank you.

Great. Any other folks in the room wish to express support?

Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal here in support on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, Habitat for Humanity California, Circulate Planning and Policy, Fieldstead, and San Diego Housing Federation. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other folks in support? Okay. Any opposition? We'll bring it back to committee.

Any questions? We have a motion and a and a second? And a Second? Okay.

Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate your leadership and all things housing, Senator Grayson. And with that, that's out on the a roll call with Miss Dixon not voting. And we have Miss Ashby up. Sorry, Mister Allen. And you're presenting, SB 1283?

I am. And I will be very brief. I don't even have witnesses with me. California leads the nation in advancing clean transportation, including streamlined approvals for electric vehicle charging stations. However, there's some ambiguity in existing law that has prevented local governments from streamlining the approval of EV charging stations that have essential additions such as canopies and on-site energy storage systems.

As a result, the deployment of chargers is not keeping pace with the growing demand, which creates infrastructure gaps and, of course, hinders the state from reaching our our goals. This bill aims to help boost EV charging infrastructure across the state of California by including essential accessories like canopies and, really, that on-site energy storage system. The cost to implement SB 1283 are minor to post template for, permit applicants if a local agency does not have one.

This bill will help accelerate EV infrastructure, support California's clean energy and transportation goals, help people have access to energy across the state of California faster, clearer, and more consistently. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Great. Any opposition, formal or otherwise? We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions with a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. That is out with Republicans not voting, with Miss Dixon voting no, and Mister Hoover voting aye. And with that, we have Mister Allen finally up. And you are presenting, SB 1209.

Yes. I've got three bills, actually. So that's

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. 1209, 1244.

And then I'm presenting for a Senator Stern.

Oh, right. Let's do yours two first. Okay.

Great.

And you can pick which one you'd like.

Let's do 1209 since it's earlier in order. Ok. This is a bill about enforcement at the Department of Insurance. Current law authorizes the insurance commissioner to conduct examinations of insurers to evaluate their market practices, to verify that insurers operate fairly and in compliance with state law. These examinations may identify operational deficiencies and include findings and and corrective actions, designed to protect consumers and and improve company practices in the industry.

Now while most insurers voluntarily comply with actions proposed in the report, there's not a clear mechanism to require remediation of violations. And so this this law would allow the insurance commissioner to assess a fine to an insurer for failing to address corrective actions proposed in an examination. And with that, I respect the question. I vote.

Great. Anyone wish to express support? Any opposition? We will bring it back to committee of emotion in a second. Would you like to close?

Respect for asking. Thank you. I appreciate I wanna appreciate our our insurance Chair for the work we did on this bill.

Great. Thank you. That's settled on a b roll call with Mister Hoover voting aye and Mister Ta voting no. Sorry. Mister Ta not voting.

I apologize. Mister Ta not voting. And with that, SB 1244.

Yep. Okay. Another insurance bill. And and, again, thank you to our our chair for for the work that we did we did together. This bill requires health insurance brokers and agents and advisers and related professionals that advise local public agencies on employee health care to disclose compensation that they receive for selling those benefits and plans before entering or renewing a services contract with that agency.

So under current federal law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 requires brokers and related professionals to disclose their compensation to private employers with plans covered under the, employee retirement income security act, ERISA, upon request. Now this requirement does not extend to public agencies because public sector plans are exempt from ERISA. So this bill closes some gaps between the public and private systems by doing the following. It ensures that public agencies benefit from disclosures already available to private employers.

It requires brokers, agents, and related professionals to proactively disclose their compensation to public agencies so that it helps to guide decisions before and not after they are made.

And then it captures more forms of compensations that than both state law and federal law currently cover. And as outlined in the committee analysis, the bill accomplishes these goals with no additional state costs, which should be of of of interest to the Appropriations Committee. We know the local public agencies spend billions of dollars annually on employee health benefits. They rely on brokers and agents and related professionals to recommend insurance carriers, negotiate rates, select vendors.

But we've we've discovered and we know that, in in some cases, these these professionals often receive compensation from insurers and third parties that the public agencies never see.

So for example, commissions can be be as high as 50% for the premium, for some supplemental products, which is built into the premiums that the employers and employees pay. Base commissions can be between three to six percent of the total premium for an entire health insurance plan. And then you have situations, and, again, this isn't everybody.

I I don't mean to make that as that, but we we know of situations where, some of these brokers have been treated to trips and other experiences such as going to the Super Bowl or a luxury resort that employers are completely unaware of. And, that's part of their compensation packages that they're trying to sell, you know, deals to these districts.

So we know that aside from just inflating health care costs, these hidden compensation agreements can then create some misaligned incentives, steering the agencies toward more expensive vendors. And, you know, we have more disclosure for private employers, and yet the public agencies are charged with overseeing taxpayer dollars and ensuring that they're spent appropriately. And so this bill makes creates a situation where the public agencies have some more tools and information to guide their decision making without capping compensation or barring contractual agreements.

So here with me to to testify in support of the bill, we have Brian Miramantes on behalf of CTA, and and I know he's speaking on behalf of a broad coalition of public educational entities, including our school boards association and and those administrators.

Oh, can you turn the mic on please? Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Bryant Miramontes with the California Teachers Association speaking in strong support of SB 1244. As the Senator mentioned, right now, hidden intermediary intermediary compensation and a lack of disclosure in public health and benefit plans obscure how public dollars are spent. For school districts and other local public agencies, that black box directly harms affordability.

When hidden broker fees and undisclosed commissions inflate administrative and health care costs, those dollars are siphoned away from frontline classroom instruction, student support services, and fair compensation for school employees who are struggling with the rising cost of living.

SB 1244's disclosure requirements bring the transparent needed transparency needed to ensure that every dollar intended for public employee benefits is accounted for. CTA respectfully adjusts respectfully urges your aye vote.

Great. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition?

Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, Faith Borges, on behalf of California agents and health insurance professionals in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1244. First, I want to acknowledge and appreciate Senator Allen's commitment to transparency and affordability. Consumers absolutely deserve to understand how health care dollars are spent, and our members support clear, meaningful disclosure, which is why we would support this bill if it was mirrored to align with the risk of standards.

But transparency does need to be actionable, accurate, and aligned with where costs are generated.

Health insurance premiums are rising due to underlying health care costs, hospital pricing, pharmaceutical spending, and utilization trends. Independent agents and brokers do not set premiums, do not control claims costs, and do not negotiate provider pricing. They serve as advocates for their clients, including public agencies and their employees, helping them navigate complex options, control costs where possible, and resolve utilization issues when they arise.

This bill, as drafted, places the burden of significantly expanded disclosure on agents and brokers even though much of the required data is held by carriers and vendors. This creates a system where those without control of the data are held responsible for reporting it.

That misalignment does not improve transparency. It risks confusion, incomplete information, and reduces access to experienced advisers. If the goal is to reduce costs for purchasers, policy should remain focused on the drivers of health care spending while ensuring that transparency requirements are placed on the entities that generate and control the data.

We do believe there is a path forward that acknowledges and advances transparency and transparency and protects consumers and maintains access to knowledgeable community based professionals, but we ask for those amendments to address compliance challenges by conforming the language with ERISA to align industry reporting, reduce duplicative reporting, and ease administrative burdens, ultimately controlling cost in advancing the objective of the bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair and members, John Norwood. On behalf of the independent insurance agents and brokers of California, we our clients support transparency, but this bill, we believe, creates an unworkable mandate that will harm the very public agencies that seeks to protect by reducing competition and make it ease making it easier for those entities that remained to increase prices. Most important factor in an insurance transaction is the price that the client pays and the performance of of the entity providing the services.

The individual factors that make up that price aren't really significant in that there's a variety of different sales mechanisms in the insurance business, and those price factors within those differ widely.

But in the end, the price is just about the same. Our clients, represent or sell about 80% of the commercial insurance in California. I don't know of a single situation where they're have been, resistant to disclosure of compensation when requested by the client. Federal law may not apply to public entities, but I don't know any situation where public agencies don't require disclosure as a part of the bid process. That's what's kind of interesting about this bill.

This in our opinion, though, this bill creates an impossible standard requiring disclosure of compensation received by affiliates, subcontractors, or related parties creating legal responsibility on the broker for information that may not be accessible to them, maybe proprietary to third parties. The result, in our opinion, is that brokers will exit the public entity market because the risk of compliance is too high. Instead, they will just basically choose to serve private sector clients where the federal CAA rules are clear, established, and manageable.

Smaller and rural public agencies will probably be hit the hardest because they're the ones that rely on local agents and brokers to provide these products. And I think that the local agents will not be able to comply with this bill.

For all those reasons, we're opposed to this bill unless it's aligned with the federal regulations on this topic. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition?

Good morning. Shari McHugh representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and speaking on behalf of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from committee? Okay. Do we have a motion? A motion and a second?

Second. Would you like to close, Mister Allen?

Yeah. No. I appreciate the discussion. I just wanna point out that the the administrators who run these districts are are supporting this bill or asking for this bill, and I respect for asking when I vote.

Thank you. That is out with Republicans not voting.

Thank you.

And with that, you are presenting Mister Stern's bill next, I believe.

Yes, SB 1359.

Yep. You can begin when you're ready.

Alright. Great. So and this is the Natural Gas Ratepayer Protection Act. I should name my bills. That's exciting.

Okay. So for the past six years, the Public Utilities Commission has been taking a close look at the long term future of our state's gas infrastructure. Steps that PUC has already taken, including mandating that anytime our gas utilities make investments over $75,000,000, they must assess the alternatives, including electrification and non pipeline alternatives.

SB 1359 takes the next step in applying similar fiscal discipline to gas distribution infrastructure projects and ensuring more transparency in the general rate case proceeding. This is important because California's gas utilities are on track to replace 8,900 miles of gas distribution mains by 2045 at a projected total cost of $43,000,000,000.

This bill requires gas utilities to submit an annual report to describe expenditures associated with gas distribution infrastructure replacement and upgrades and then empowers the PUC to further consider whether cost effective electrification alternatives or non pipeline alternatives could reasonably avoid or reduce the project.

The PUC can then use their existing authority on rate recovery on these gas distribution infrastructure replacements and upgrades. So this this bill prioritizes affordability by ensuring the PUC has access to adequate data to inform responsible gas rate payer investments.

It would require the PUC to evaluate depreciation schedules for gas distribution infrastructure and whether the schedule appropriately reflects projected reductions in gas demand and considers alternative depreciation methodologies to minimize rate payer exposure. Updated depreciation schedules will guarantee that state regulators have the best available information necessary for protecting rate payers from exposure to future stranded asset costs without posing an undue burden on utilities or preventing their ability to serve Californians.

The bill does not ban or prohibit natural gas upgrades, maintenance, nor does it delay or prohibit safety related repairs or emergency investments. And respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to express support?

Any opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry. They were walking in front of me. Hello. Good morning. Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. We have an opposed and less amended position on this bill and just wanted to say that, the conversations with the author, to remove our opposition are very robust and we feel confident that we can get to neutrality. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Counties of Fresno and Kern both in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Department of Finance here. Would you like to add anything?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Millie Yan with Department of Finance. We have no file on this bill.

Okay. Thank you. And any questions?

Do we have a motion?

We have a motion and a second.

Okay. That is, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask an aye bote.

That is out on a b roll call with Miss Pacheco and Miss Sharp Collins not voting.

Okay. Thank you, members. Thank you.

Alright. Actually, that is actually on call. I apologize.

We're waiting for some more folks to come to committee.

Okay, Mister Allen. Great. Good job.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Let's see. We've Mister Weiner here. And I believe you have two bills, SB677 and SB908.

Feel free to pick which one you wanna start with.

You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. I'm here to present Senate Bill 677 to help California continue to efficiently build more homes in the face of our state's housing crisis. The legislature has worked hard to cut red tape, streamline housing approvals, and fund more affordable housing construction.

However, project opponents continue to find new and creative ways to delay new housing, including, the two issues addressed, in this bill by appealing parcel maps and by failing to provide approvals for or federally required approvals for bond issuance for affordable housing. We've seen this in San Francisco, for example, where your projects that are fully approved have their permits and they need a parcel map.

And because California lets anyone for any reason appeal a parcel map, they get appealed. It causes confusion. No one really understands why the appeal is happening. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything about the housing project, but it ends up causing a delay. So this bill will eliminate those appeals in urban areas.

There will still be appeals allowed if an elected official, sponsors, the appeal, so it won't foreclose it entirely but it will not allow these abusive appeals that we've that we've seen. The bill also addresses situations where there's an affordable housing project and you have tax exempt bond issuance. And under federal law, you have to have an approval, of that bond issuance that the city council typically provides.

We have seen situations where a city council will just not agendize it, fail to act and so it will delay or potentially even kill the project. The bill will SB 677 will authorize the State Treasurer to enter into a joint powers authority to issue these tax exempt, private activity bonds in for purpose of the federally required TEFRA, approval.

So it's very technical stuff, but these are two areas where I think we can improve the process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is John Lovell, Senior Project Developer with Mission Housing Development Corporation.

You could turn on your mic. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you to Senator Scott Wiener for supporting this bill and inviting me here to speak to you all this morning. Mission Housing had to deal with the frivolous appeal of a subdivision map of one of our new construction projects last year.

Our development dubbed the marvel in the Mission by the community is a culmination of years of grassroots community organizing to bring almost 400 units of affordable housing to a large infill site next to the 16th Mission BART Station in San Francisco.

The marvel enjoyed widespread support as it received its land use and environmental review approvals last year. However, I have to admit that everyone was caught off guard when a small handful of neighbors submitted an appeal to the subdivision map for the project.

The stated reasons in the appeal had nothing to do with the map itself and everything to do with the usual reasons we're used to hearing about why people don't want affordable housing built in their neighborhood, particularly in this case for the permanent supportive housing that the project would provide for 136 formerly homeless individuals.

Well, I'm pleased to be able to say that this appeal was unanimously rejected, and we were able to start construction on the Marvel earlier this year. Despite this victory, beating the subdivision appeal still came at a cost mainly in legal fees for our land use attorney as well of staff time at my agency as well as the public agencies involved in processing the appeal.

There's been a lot of discussion in this legislature lately about how expensive it is to build affordable housing in the state and how that's largely a product of the complicated approval processes that projects have to navigate, which are filled with choke points that can be easily weaponized.

For that reason, I believe that this project will have a positive impact on the state budget because it'll make it less expensive to build affordable housing. For that reason, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California Yimby, a proud cosponsor in support. Thank you so much.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and SPUR in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

Do we have a motion?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mister Weiner?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate your perseverance on this and everything else as well as yours to continue to push for more housing. And with that, that bill is out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon voting no. Thank you.

And SB 908?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, SB 908, which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, streamlined support process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements and restricts the ability of cities and HOAs, to add costly additional requirements, beyond those needed to meet energy efficiency standard.

Basically, people wanna replace their windows or with more energy efficient windows, replace drafty windows with windows that will lower their energy bills in an era when our energy bills are way too high.

And all too often, we see sometimes cities, sometimes HOA say, no. You have to have keep your old drafty windows or you have to have a replica window replacement that is dramatically more expensive for people.

So this this bill will put a stop to that and allow people to choose their windows based on energy efficiency standards. The bill does have exemptions for landmarked buildings, but this is a good way for people to be able to lower their cost of living, respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm also joined by Mister Lovell.

Thank you again. Even with all the important work that this legislature has done to make it easier to approve new housing in California, one consistent area where we still run into challenges is with arbitrary and subjective restrictions on what kind of windows can be put in buildings.

Besides new buildings we've built over the past ten years at Mission Housing, some of our proudest accomplishments have involved the rehabilitation preservation of existing affordable housing stock, either that Mission Housing built in the seventies and the eighties or that the public housing authority in San Francisco built in the same time period.

Unfortunately, instances of what should be straightforward window replacements can still get tied up in red tape with arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions on what kind of materials we're allowed to use for replacing windows, particularly the framing.

Often, it seems as if the point of these rules is to treat a building built within the lifetime of many of us in this room as if it carries the same historical weight as a Victorian that survived the 1906 earthquake.

That to me makes no sense. This is a consistent challenge with new construction as well. As recently as 2024, the city approved what it calls objective design standards, which outright prohibit vinyl frame windows on any parts of a new building that could be seen from public right of way.

Despite this, vinyl windows are substantially less expensive than their aluminum counterparts. There are also superior heat insulators, which lead to long term savings and energy costs.

For one of our new construction projects, we are only able to get vinyl frame windows approved by invoking one of the five cost saving measures that were allowed under the state density bonus program. While this change add added up to over 6 figures in cost savings to the project, it shouldn't take a density bonus waiver to do this. It should just take some common sense.

Reliability is also a key concern. Over the past decade, supply chains in the building industry have been rocked by disruptions to the pandemic and ongoing volatility in global trade policy. I've even had a project with locally sourced aluminum windows here in Northern California that was delayed because of PG&E power shutoffs and wildfires.

In projects like, in situations like this, the ability to be flexible and pivot to another supplier or product type without having our hands tied by arbitrary aesthetic preferences of the public agency can make a big difference on whether a project is delivered on time and on budget. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of Mayor Daniel Leary in support. Thank you.

Madison Vanderklay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support.

Great. Any folks in opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

Nope. Do we have a motion?

Motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Mister Weiner. The SB 908 is out on an a roll call with Miss Dixon voting no.

Miss Rubio, you are up next. You are presenting SB 1323.

And you can begin when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, members of this committee and chairwoman. Thank you for this opportunity to present here before you. At its core, SB 1323 is about ensuring humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in medical settings.

Reports indicate that some individuals in ICE custody have been denied communication with their loved ones, delays in care and worsening medical conditions, and in very extreme cases, preventable deaths.

SB 1323 requires health care entities to inform staff and volunteers how to respond to requests from individuals in immigration custody and allow patients to notify an emergency contact of their location and condition. SB 1323 has a minimal fiscal impact.

The committee analysis identifies only potential minor costs associated with staff education, updating existing procedures, and posting required signage. There are one time limited administrative activities, not an ongoing prop programmatic cost.

Most health health care facilities already have visitor policies in place and staff training as well. SB 1323 builds on existing operational procedures rather than creating an entirely new compliance framework. Facilities can incorporate these requirements into existing trainings and policy updates.

The California Department of Health anticipates no state administrative costs, so CDPH has concluded that implementation does not require additional state resources, demonstrating that this bill does not create a new regulatory burden. The bill promotes consistency and it reduces uncertainty, especially during very stressful times.

Clear procedures for responding to immigration enforcement will help staff understand the responsibilities before it occurs. SB 1323 is narrowly tailored. It does not prohibit compliance with state or federal law, and this will simply establishes clear operational procedures and notice requirements while recognizing valid judicial warrants and respecting court orders. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support?

Madam Chair, members, Tim Madden representing the California chapter of American College Emergency Physicians in support.

Any any, folks in opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

Motion and a second.

Great. Would you like to close?

Absolutely. Just thank you for your time. From a fiscal perspective, SB 1323 is very modest. It's practical. The cost are limited to routine administrative updates.

Staff education and signage, CDPH anticipates no cost and any potential local reimbursement is expected to be very minor and it's critically important to ensure that people are treated with respect. And with that, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Miss Rubio. That is out on a b roll call with Mister Hoover not voting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Menjivar, please.

Step up to the plate.

Okay. You have two bills, I believe. SB 938 and SB 1272.

And I will be also presenting for Senator Cervantes afterwards.

You can begin on whichever you prefer.

I'll begin with my bill on SB 938.

Great.

Assembly Member, colleagues, you-- we've all seen in this past year, year and a half, various of communities have come in-- have had federal agencies come in and detain, at times warrantless without provocation, literally for the shade of my color skin, and oftentimes, we have seen a lot of them die. What we're seeing is that some of these federal immigration officers are getting 30 days of training because they were incentivized, given a bonus of K30, K50.

We'll pay your student loans if you come and play pretend that you're in law enforcement. But when you compare it to the training that our law enforcement agencies get here in California, it's no comparison. I'm proud of many of our police officers here in California who take their job very seriously.

But what is happening is those federal agents currently right now are able to, after gaining 30 days of training, being just incentivized to wear a gun and a badge and terrorize people, apply for our local law enforcement agencies and get a waiver to not go through our training, just simply do a lateral move into our local law enforcement agencies who have worked so hard to build trust with our community members.

What SB 938 is doing after being drastically amended to make sure that--even after amendment-- making sure that we are doing something that is within our purview, and it has caused the-- made the Chief Police Association go from opposition to neutral, is to say that if anyone wants to be a local law enforcement officer who was a federal immigration officer, you cannot apply for a waiver to bypass our hundreds of hours of additional training that is required to be a local law enforcement officer.

So SB 938 is saying is, you wanna be-- work at LAPD, San Francisco PD, Fresno PD, then you're gonna have to take the POST required training and you no longer will be required-- you will no longer be eligible to request a waiver. With that, my witness could no longer make it, so Madam Chair, if I could read just some of that? MALDEF is proudly in support of SB 938, which is important bill on police training standards.

It recognizes a simple point. Training and experience as a federal immigration enforcement officer is not necessarily equivalent to experience as a California peace officer performing general law enforcement duties. Federal immigration officers are operating under different legal authority. California peace officers must be trained in California law and POST standards, including a long list of training protocols. These requirements are central to maintaining public safety and community trust. This is well within California's authority, and we have a responsibility to determine who may exercise the right or the privilege to be a California peace officer. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. And do you accept the amendments?

Yes.

Yes. Great. Okay. Folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay. DOF. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Although this bill does not result in costs for the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, it may result in a state reimbursable mandate because local agencies may incur costs associated with requiring additional clarification of previous employment and covering costs for more potential peace officer hires undergoing the regular basic course. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second and--

Just briefly, Madam Chair, I just wanna thank the author for bringing this to the conversation. My district has been really hit with these situation that we've been dealing there, you know, inhumane rates in our districts, and I think anything we could do to, one, support our law enforcement who definitely is equipped and trained to do the right thing, but also just take a closer look of how these untrained agents are coming to our communities and really terrorizing our communities. So I think just having those conversations are important, and I look forward to continuing to engage with the author on how do we address those things. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author. Just wanna echo the sentiments and the comments of my colleague, Mr. Solache. As most folks know, my areas in Downtown Los Angeles and surrounding communities has also been hit. And this is a very common-sense bill, and I wanna just thank the author again for coming forward with this, and I'm proud to move this bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Great. And that's out on a B roll call. And SB 1272.

Yes. Thank you. SB 1272 is a center and bench of our special. I am the sponsor of this of this bill. It's because I think there are certain things that homeowners are fined that should not be fined or not it's or not their fault.

I bought my home five years ago, and within a couple years, I got a fine that I had to tear down my wall because it was in violation. The wall came with my house. I did not know it was in violation. And I was told that they tried to get the previous homeowner, for seven years to fix the violation. And now that I moved in, it was my my responsibility.

I thought that it was completely unfair. They were giving me thirty days to find a construction crew, tear down my wall, make sure my dogs didn't run away, and build a whole brand new wall. And if I wanted an extension, that was another $400 just to ask for an extension on top of the already $400 they were finding me. So out the gate, it was $800. Well, I called them.

I said, well, I'm a legislator. Let me try to fix this situation.

Enter SB 1272 that is saying that if this happens to a homeowner and there was unbeknownst to them that when they bought a home, it came with a code violation that was not a health and safety risk that they, after proving with affidavit and they showed that in their buyer's report or the selling documents, it did not say that the home had a code violation, that they would get six months, to try to rectify the, the violation that is in a health and safety or at risk of hurting someone.

If the homeowner re needed more time because it takes a long time to fix these situations, that they would be able to get another six months that after showing good faith that they were working on it without having to pay for another fee to get six more months to work on it. Seems like a common sense.

Everything is so expensive. Why are we punishing homeowners who did not know that they bought a house with a code violation that is not a danger to, the community or gonna hurt someone? Here to testify, madam chair, is my witness here to my right.

Morning, chair and assembly members. My name is Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We are in support. We believe this bill provides a helpful solution for owners who want to do the right thing, and we respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in support wish to express that opinion? Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? You'll each have two minutes.

Good morning again, chair and members. Faith Gorges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1272. We understand Senator Menjivar's bill comes from a frustrating personal experience, and we appreciate her intent to protect other homeowners who inherit and disclose violations. But we believe a disclosure problem is for real estate and consumer protection law, not a reason to delay code enforcement that's rooted in health and safety.

As written, the bill isn't limited to the scenario that the isn't limited to the scenario that the senator described.

Any owner of a one to four unit owner occupied property can unlock mandatory six month delays extendable up to a year or more by filing a sworn affidavit claiming that they didn't know of the violation and weren't aware of it. An owner with little incentive to fix a known problem could claim the exemption, forcing agencies to review, contest, or litigate each claim before enforcement can proceed.

In our members' experience, knowledge and responsibility disputes are common, drawing agencies into costly proceedings before the underlying violation is even addressed. That drains public resources and can push cities towards lawsuits where administrative enforcement would otherwise be quicker and cheaper for the agency and the individual. Exactly the type of ongoing cost that your analysis flags as potentially significant.

Non emergency violations don't stay static. A problem that isn't dangerous today can become one during six to twelve months. Local agencies already have discretion to extend timelines for owners working in good faith, and what concerns us is losing the ability to act quickly against those who are simply using this process to stall.

We've appreciated the amendments thus far and the open dialogue with the senator's office on a potentially narrower fix that protects blameless homeowners without inviting broader litigation, but we haven't yet struck that balance in this legislation. We remain respectfully opposed at this time, but very much appreciate the work with the senator.

With me, I have Lee, who is a KCO board member. Happy to answer any technical questions. She's a compliance expert.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Name, organization, and position, please.

Mark Neuburger with the California State Association. Counties like to align our comments to those provided by KCO and also would like to register our position for the Rural County representatives of California.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of Bakersfield in respectful opposition.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the county board of supervisors for Solano, and just wanna align ourselves with the other statewide accounting organizations. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions from committee? Yes.

Thank you, madam chair. And I think I wanna thank again the the Senator for bringing this to the table. Just like this is a special for her, this is my jam as well. As a former mayor of my city, I dealt with a lot of the issues with the you know, homeowners that bought a home and also, you know, dealing with the call enforcement situation. So I think there has to be a balanced approach.

One of the things that I was really a big proponent of is the pre inspection reports. I think they're critical to transparency process for the new homeowner. Essentially, for those who are buying homes, they know what they're walking into. And because then there's a, I didn't do that wall or didn't do that. And I think to your to your point, Senator, you know, how it's not fair that you bought this home, and it's very frustrating.

I could totally understand. So I definitely wanna, you know, re engage with you in this conversation further be beyond this bill. But I think pre inspection reports are definitely something that I protect both the the new owner and also the cities because then they get to disclose what is wrong, if anything, with the property or what was done, you know, not with unpermitted, essentially. So I think, again, just understand the frustration, and I will support this today.

But I think, you know, the code enforcement, there's a responsibility for the cities to definitely comply and making sure that everything's up to up to par.

So I think I'm happy to move this forward today, but I think we need to definitely address the pre inspection reports. I'm not sure where that is at in this conversation. But, again, while we're engaging directly about this, I think it really, really protects the the new homeowners.

I know our chair is big on housing, and I think as we could create more housing for more homeownership, it's it's a good thing as well, but ensuring that they're walking into a a situation that makes sense for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. I was just question is, who enforces that? Was it the city, or who was enforcing? Was it the state? I I missed that point. The city.

Great. Do we have a motion and a second? Great. Would you like to close? Oh, and mic on.

Yes. Sorry. I answered to you with mic off. But, yes, city enforcement. I appreciate the conversation.

I do wanna note there's nothing there hasn't been a balanced truck because there's no language for me to review. There's been no amendments proposed. So we've taken the amendments. Rural counties proposed an amendment. We took it in local gov.

I do wanna clarify also that I introduced language addressing only single family homes, Assembly local government policy committee increased that to four units or more. So that was not my doing whatsoever. So I just do wanna note that we've taken amendments when amendments were proposed to us and nothing else has been proposed to us yet.

With that, up to this point, we have felt that we've balanced we've struck a balance of ensuring that there is protections and health and safety, but also ensuring that the city does not depend on homeowners to build their budgets just because they did not know that a violation came with their home that they just bought without respect and asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. And SB 1272 is out on our a roll call with Miss Dixon voting no and Mister Tangipa not voting. And you are also presenting for Miss Cervantes, correct?

At SB 1117.

Yes.

That is correct.

You can begin when you're ready.

On behalf of Senator Cervantes, thank you for allowing me to speak for her. SB 1117 will reduce barriers to ADU production by ensuring that local impact fees are calculated fairly and proportionality- proportionally consistent with state housing policy. For many first time and moderate income owner homeowners, the ability to construct an ADU can increase long term financial stability and provide, intergenerational support. Existing law requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Contrary to what we in the legislature have intended, some local governments are calculating impact fee amounts based on the entire square footage of the ADU once it exceeds 750 square feet. Rather than basing the fees only on the portion above that threshold.

So this bill wants to clarify and strengthen the existing ADU law by ensuring local governments assess impact fees only on the portion of an ADU exceeding 750 square feet. This will all apply only to the first two ADU units per lot. In jurisdictions where impact fees are more than $10 per square foot, the change can add more than $8,000 to project cost. Thank you, colleagues, and the rest of the community for your time analysis on this bill.

Madam Chair, I'd like to turn over to, the, witness in support of this bill.

Good morning, Chair members of the committee. My name is Jordan Pernana Carvajal of on behalf of California, you can be a proud sponsor of SB 1117. As the Senator mentioned, this bill will save thousands of thousand dollars for homeowners who wanna build ADUs in their backyard. And, also, we took amendment in the recent policy committee that limits it to up to two ADUs only. And so we've we made some progress to this bill and respectfully ask your support for SB 1117.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of Casita Coalition in support.

Raymond Contreras on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulate Planning and Policy in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks in opposition? You can begin when you're ready. Just turn the mic on, please. Yeah.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and members. I'm Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. We represent local agencies that provide essential services that allow for housing growth to even be livable and feasible. And I speak in respectful opposition to SB 1117.

This measure expands a policy that was created in 2019, which gave discounts to impact fee discounts to homeowners who were building a second home on their parcel. Not only did it cap it at 750 square feet, but it also has a proportionality test. Meaning, if there is to be an impact fee, it's in relation to the size of the primary unit.

So if you had a 2,000 square foot home and you had a 1,000 square foot ADU, you would still be paying half the impact fees of a of a normal project. These impact fees are a significant resource to build the infrastructure that's necessary to even make housing growth possible.

The Mitigation Fee Act has strict boundaries on how the fees are set through a nexus study. It has boundaries on how they're applied and how they can be spent only on infrastructure, not on ongoing costs like maintenance or staffing. This policy, both in 2019 and the follow-up here in SB 1117, violates the, the spirit of that mitigation fee act where we use an actual study to determine the true costs of the impacts to the community by increasing density there.

You know, as was true seven years ago when we first spoke to this, it remains true that there is no provision to offset the the resources that would normally go to providing the infrastructure to make the community to offset the impact to the community. And I I submit that housing and infrastructure can't be separated.

It's one ecosystem. A house in a vacuum not connected to the services to the parks and fire stations and fire trucks and police stations and such is not livable. The special districts specifically are impacted by these policies often have limited revenue pathways, and these types of fees are specifically dedicated just to servicing that increased growth.

And and if you could wrap up.

Thank you. We do applaud any innovations or taking on the housing issue from multiple angles, but it's asked that we remember that it exists in a broader ecosystem and with that, respectful opposition.

Thank you. Any oh, sorry. Additional folks in opposition?

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the cities of Belmont, Burbank, Foster City, Redwood City, San Marcos, Thousand Oaks, and the Marin County Council Of Mayors And Council Members, all in respect for opposition.

Mark Neuberger, California State Association of Counties registering opposition.

Good morning, madam Chair. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. In a respectful opposed and less amended position, we have been working with the author's office, on some information on the impacts that it could have long term on

the fire service. Thank

you. Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, Mister Gonzales?

I think the substitute for the author and the author, and I'd like to coauthor the bill and move the bill.

Great. Any other questions? Okay. Do you have a motion? Great.

And a second? Great. Would you like to close?

What we're seeing right now is that, about 75% of the ADUs being built right now are under the 750 square foot. So these cities are not getting these impact fees because most homeowners are choosing to not, bring on those fees. What you could potentially see is an increase of more than more ADs being built that are above the 750 feet square foot if we do an impact fees as proportion to anything above the 750.

So you can make a case here that cities are gonna see more revenue coming in because you'll have homeowners now deciding that maybe it does make sense for their for their wallet, their bank account to build bigger. We're in a housing crisis.

Anything that we can do to help owner homeowners afford their first home and pay for their mortgage there, it's gonna go a long way and keep people housed respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. And that is out on a roll call with miss Sharp-Collins not voting and Mister Tangipa not voting. Oh, sorry. You have two bills for Yes. Miss Cervantes.

I apologize. Okay. Sorry. SB 1367.

SB 1367 on behalf of Senator Cervantes prohibits cities and counties from approving new land uses that would allow the construction of detention facilities or permit the conversion of existing buildings into such facilities. The goal of this Bill is to protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities, particularly those that not designed for long term human habitation.

By doing so, SB 1364 will protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities. That's the same thing.

The public already knows very little about what is happening inside private detention facilities except for the trickle of horror stories about rancid food, medical neglect, severe overcrowding, especially in ICE detention facilities as immigrants are moved across state lines where at least 32 people have died in ICE custody since 2025 and 15 so far this year, one every six days.

Yet SB 1365 treats all private entities operating detention facilities in California uniformly regardless of whether they are used on behalf of a local state or the Federal Government. The bill defines detention facilities to mean any structure, whether temporary or permanent, operated by a private entity on behalf of a governmental entity for the temporary holding of persons charged with a criminal offense or detained for civil or administrative purposes.

The detention facilities increase surveillance and enforcement in the neighborhoods around them. They lock states and localities into long term detention, and local communities to an industry built on Cajun people. They're not meant for human as to be there long term, and we wanna ensure that land use policies are not used to facilitate human rights abuse.

Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone there who wish to express support?

Any opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? Yes.

Madam Chair, I would like to co author this bill. And with that, I'll move the bill.

Great. Do we have a second? Great. Any additional questions, comments? Would you like to close?

Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Great. That's out on a b roll call.

Thank you.

Okay. And with that, we will go to Mister McNerney. You are next.

Presenting SB 1196.

And you can begin when you're ready.

And if you could turn the mic on, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee. I'm pleased here to this morning to present SB 1196, and I'm also pleased to avoid the suspense file. Now SB 1196 will streamline small energy connection projects, and that includes accessory dwelling units by directing the CPUC to establish timelines for utility hookup requests.

Along with ADUs and junior ADUs, small energy connection projects are defined by those that do not require infrastructure upgrades by an investor owned utility. Examples include EV chargers or battery home battery backup systems.

Over the past few years, California has enacted laws to accelerate energy connections for new housing, transportation, and more. But homeowners who have completed small projects, including adding an ADU, remain frustrated by the long delays.

In some cases, applicants have wait have had to wait up to a year for a utility hookup, and that means, you've invested a significant amount of money for your, for your ADU and you don't get to, get any return on that investment for up to a year.

Such long delays, not only place an undue financial burden on homeowners, but also worsen the state's housing shortage and frustrate California's electrification efforts. SB 1196 streamlines small energy connection projects by allowing applicants to submit a request for a utility hookup at the same time that they request a build building permit and by barring utilities from canceling a service connection without any application, without the applicant's consent.

The bill also directs the California Public Utility Commission to create clear timelines for how you process for IOUs to process utility service connection requests and establishes penalties for IOUs that did not timely process small energy connection applications. With me this morning, my witness my main witness in support is Sylvia Aguilar of the Casita Coalition. Sylvia?

Good morning, madam Chair and members. I am Sylvia Aguilar, programs and operations manager for the Casita Coalition. The Casita Coalition is a nonprofit dedicated to advancing middle housing solutions, including ADUs and JADUs. Our founders cowrote the 2017 law that legalized ADU statewide and unlocked the California ADU revolution.

SB 1196 will streamline small energization projects, including ADUs and JADUs by directing the CPUC to establish timelines for utility hookup requests.

Since 2018, the number of new ADUs permitted in California has skyrocketed from 800 a year to about 30,000 today. ADUs now comprise about one third of new homes in California, and many homeowners are adding ADUs to rent or lease to residents in need of lower cost housing.

But as Senator McNerney noted, homeowners and ADU builders are increasingly facing a significant barrier, incredibly long delays for service connections. Homeowners and contractors say they're being forced to wait up to nine to twelve months for energization.

IOUs also add delays when they prohibit homeowners from applying for a service connection until the property owner has received a building permit from their local government.

This problem alone can cause months of delay. Also, some IOUs cancel small energization applications without the homeowner's consent, prompting even more delays. SB 1196 addresses these problems and adds timelines for IOUs to process applications for small energization projects where the homeowner might only need to add a second meter.

The bill also directs the CPUC to establish penalties for IOUs that do not timely process energization applications. SB 1196 is common sense legislation that will ensure California can meet its electrification goals and get low cost housing and other small energization projects online in a timely manner.

And for this, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Madam Chair, members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

No. Do we have a motion?

Motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mister McNerney?

I will expect respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. That is out on an a roll call with Mister Tangipa, voting no.

Thank you.

And we'll probably have to come back to that one.

Mister Arreguin.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. On SB 1196, Mister McNerney, Miss Dixon is voting no.

Mister Arregain, yes. You can begin SB 1299.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It's my pleasure to present SB 1299, the State Fire Marshal Fire Suppression Education and Training Safety Act, which is cosponsored by the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California and the California State Pipe Trades Council. This bill ensures that California has a clear and enforceable framework for certifying and training fire sprinkler fitters and this bill ensures that only properly trained and certified professionals perform this critical life safety work.

We certainly know it's important that these fire suppression systems work to protect the safety of buildings and people in California, and that's why we need to have trained and certified people installing and maintaining these critical life safety systems.

Prior to 2017, individuals installing fire sprinkler systems were not required to have specific qualifications, despite the State Fire Marshal's long-standing requirements requiring knowledgeable and experienced installers. The state did put in place a certification process, but, unfortunately, a recent court ruling struck down critical life save—saving—regulations that were implemented by the State Fire Marshal. However, in the court ruling, it acknowledged that the certification program is necessary to protect public safety validating the need for enforceable training standards.

SB 1299 enacts the standards and codifies them into law to ensure that individuals working on these life safety systems are trained and qualified to do this work. Fire sprinkler systems are one of our most critical tools for saving lives in a fire, and every Californian deserves to know that the fire suppression systems protecting their homes and workplaces and communities have been installed and maintained by qualified professionals.

And with me to testify in support of the bill is Randy Roxson, on behalf of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California.

Thank you. Good morning.

Randy Roxson, Executive Director of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California. A fire suppression life safety system installed by unqualified installers could have catastrophic results. SB 1299 requires those who install, repair, inspect, and maintain fire suppression systems be qualified through training and education by completing an approved Fire Sprinkler Apprenticeship Training Program, and pass a, pass a written examination by the State Fire Marshal.

SB 1299 is based upon regulations adopted in 2017 by the State Fire Marshal requiring fire sprinklers—sprinkler fitters—to be certified and apprenticeships, or apprentice—apprentices—registered. The State Fire Marshal's Sprinkler Fitters Certification Program has been in effect for nearly a decade.

However, in 2019, a small coalition of contractors sued the State Fire Marshal, alleging a host of discrepancies, namely procedural errors in the Administrative Procedures Act. Over the next seven years, this lawsuit limited the State Fire Marshal from adequately enforcing key enforcement provisions of its regulation. In December 2025, the court finally ruled on the suit, and while dismissing most of the issues presented in the lawsuit, it did strike some language.

However, the court stated that it's ruling that the program was necessary for purposes of public safety. The court stated that the State Fire Marshal could reenter—reintroduce—those items through the regulatory process, if they so desired.

Unfortunately, that has not, has—have not yet been initiated. SB 1299 will restore the stricken regulatory language that required training and education for trainees, as well as supervisor to, to apprentice-trainee supervision ratios. Trainees and apprentices, apprentices installing, repairing, and maintaining life safety fire suppression systems without supervision by a trained and educated supervisor makes little sense. That is what we currently have.

SB 1299 would place in statute the same structural rules for qualification, yet provide flexibility to the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations concerning the program's administrative function and penalties for violation.

My—by placing the current Sprinkler Fitter Certification Program in statute will ensure its legacy, despite the many changes of State Fire Marshal administrations. It will also protect it from lawsuits by those who do not believe that training and education of its sprinkler fitters is necessary. Structurally, the State Farm Marshal's automatic—automated—system for certifying Sprinkler sys—fitters—and registering apprentices and trainees is already in place and has been in operation for the past decade.

So, there will be little the State Fire Marshal must do in its current regular—registration—platform. There are currently 25 states across the nation and some cities that have some type of sprinkler fitter certification and licensing requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.

Any questions? We have a motion and second. Would you like to close, Mr. Arreguin?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

That is out on a roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. And we have Mr. McGuire. You are up next. And you are presenting AB 1263.

You can begin when you're ready.

Madam Chair, members, thank you so much for allowing me to be here. I know it's been a long day. First of all, I wanna say thank you to you, Madam Chair, and to your incredible staff for all the work on the bill. SB 1263, it's our latest measure. We've had three bills that we've advanced over the years to protect wildfire survivors from unscrupulous contractors and better prepare the state for large-scale, post-disaster cleanups.

Be very quick. Number one, it's straightforward. I know everybody says that, but it mandates only licensed general, general engineering, general building, earthwork, and paving contractors can actually perform the work in disaster areas. Number two, it requires baseline safety and—safety and training standards. Bottom line is this, the Contractors State Licensing Board, they support this bill.

We're working directly with them, and they anticipate no implementation cost. Additionally, we've worked with the Southern California Contractors Association on amendments. I wanna say thank you to them and their cooperation. We're pleased to report they'll be changing their position from "opposed" to "support," following the amendments. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express support in the room? Any opposition? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. That's out on our—a roll call.

Next up is, AB 2597 by Assemblymember Wicks. Whenever you are ready, you may proceed.

Thank you. AB 2597 would appropriate approximately 7,400,000 from the general fund to the Attorney General to pay eight specific claims against the state. It also includes an urgency clause. This bill is one of several annual bills carried by the Chair of either the Assembly Appropriations Committee or the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance.

With me here are representatives from the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance to answer any questions committee members may have. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I see you have two witnesses.

Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General here on behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta. And, I don't wanna repeat what the Chair said, so I just wanted to say that,

I have here with me Deputy Attorney General Megan Hay to answer specified questions. So thank you.

Thank you. And Department of Finance?

Thank you. Department of Finance supports this bill appropriating $7,391,000.

Thank you. And are there any other members of the public in the hearing room who would like to speak in favor of this bill? If so, please approach.

Seeing none, any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of this bill? please come forward.

Seeing none, I will now go ahead and bring it up to the dais. Assemblymember Gonzales.

Move the bill.

A second? We have a first and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. It is due pass out with out on an a roll call.

Thank you.

Thank you.