Assembly Floor

The Assembly is now in session. Assemblymember Ortega notices the absence of a quorum. The sergeant at arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. The Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for the prayer and the flag salute. Today's prayer will be offered by our Assembly chaplain, Imam Yasir Khan.

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful, Almighty God, we come before you as the California State Assembly convenes. Grant those gathered here the wisdom to discern what is right, the compassion to serve with empathy, and the strength to act with courage. May their decisions be guided by justice and fairness, and may they work together in harmony for the betterment of our state and its people. Amen.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ramos will lead us in the pledge.

Please join in pledge of allegiance. Hand over heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands our nation.

Thank you. You may be seated. Reading of the previous day's Journal.

Assembly Chamber of Sacramento Thursday, May 2, 2024.

... Curry moves Mister Mister Flores seconds that the reading of the previous day's journal be dispensed with. Presentation and petitions there are none. Introduction in reference to the bills will be deferred. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor there are none. Messages from the Senate, there are none.

Moving to motions and resolutions, the absences for the day shall be deemed read and printed in the journal. Moving to our procedural motions, Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, you are recognized for your procedural motions.

Good afternoon Mister Speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 1180 A to allow assemblymember Lackey to have a guest seated at his desk today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

At the request of the author, please move item 414 AB 2785 Wilson to the inactive file

Without objection. Clerk will note.

Please remove the following items from the consent calendar.

Item 527 AB 2235 Lowenthal at the request of the author and item 536 AB 2692 Papin at the request of Assemblymember Lee.

Clerk will note,

I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 969 to allow Assemblymember Bonta to take up late amendments to to AB 2051 and Assemblymember Hoover to take up late amendments to AB 2019 today. The amendments will be included in the batch bills today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

Mister speaker, there are 10 sets of floor amendments at the desk that both sides have agreed to adopt with one single voice vote. I would ask the reading Clerk to read the bills with the amendments.

Without objection, such shall be the order. The Clerk will read

[Amendments]

All those in favor of the amendment say aye, opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bills are out to print and back on file. Moving to our guest introductions and announcements. Members, please welcome Jenny Lackey, Assembly Member Lackeys daughter who was seated with him at his desk. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

Members, please join me in welcoming Assemblymember Lowenthal's guests in the gallery here today representing Jack and Jill of America. Founded by Marion Turner Stubbs Thomas in Philadelphia in 1938 to nurture and develop African American children, Jack and Jill of America now has 262 chapters nationwide representing more than 50,000 family Members.

They promote and advocate for the public's awareness and interests of children, including child development, child growth, child quality of life, childcare, and the promotion of children's rights. On behalf of Mister Lowenthal, please welcome them to the Assembly. Welcome again and thank you for being here today and our final group to introduce today.

Please join me in introducing constituents from the 41st Assembly District on behalf of Assemblymember Holden. Here today are nine Members of Robsag Incorporated, an established small minority woman owned business, and the California Legislative Black caucuses, small business of the year.

For over 40 years, Robsag Incorporated has operated community care and skilled nursing facilities for developmentally challenged persons from children, youth, adults and later stages of life. They are an invaluable asset serving the constituents in the 41st district. Please join me on behalf of Assemblymember Holden and welcome them to the Assembly. Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you for everything you do. Just a couple of just another quick announcement. Members. Some of you may or may not be aware, but bills that passed through appropriations on last Thursday's hearing are not eligible to be taken up today.

Tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday, we will move through, and even into Friday, we will move through nearly 500 bills. So we have a lot of work ahead of us. Just encourage you to be here on time tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Thursday at 10:00 a.m. we have a lot of business ahead of us, so.

And then just one other item today is national pick Strawberries Day. But that doesn't mean you can leave and mine are not ripe yet. So with that we will move to business on the daily file. Second reading. The Clerk will read Assembly bills.

[Second Reading]

For those of you who are counting, that was 406 bills on second reading here today. And if David is horse later you'll understand we are now going to move to Assembly, Assembly third reading. Actually we're moving to, so my comments there all bills will be deemed read and all amendments will be deemed adopted.

The reconsideration items 407 and 409 all items shall be continued. We are now moving to Assembly third reading moving to file item 430 AB 2300. For the purpose of amendments, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2300 with amendments by Assembly Member Wilson.

We will pass temporarily on that. Assembly Bill Assembly Bill four item 430 AB 2300 for the purpose of amendments, the Clerk will read once again.

Assembly Bill 2300 with amendments by Assembly Wilson.

Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized on your amendments.

Good afternoon or Mister speaker and Members, I'm pleased to present amendments to AB 2300, a Bill that will ban DEHP from use in IV bags and tubing. These amendments move the implementation date for IV bags to 2030 and the IV tubing to 2035 while also expanding the use of these products to all patients.

I would like to thank all of the stakeholders for the robust conversations that we've had over the past few months and I'm happy to continue these conversations as AB 2300 moves forward. This is really a small step towards helping to reduce the risk of contact with DHP. One I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Clerk will open the roll on Mister Flora.

We oppose these amendments and ask for a roll call vote.

We are my next my next sentence was to call for a roll call vote. We'll have the Clerk open the roll on the amendments. All those vote who desire to vote on the amendments. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. ayes 43, noes 8. The amendments are adopted. The Bill is out to print and back on file. We'll now move to back to motions. Assemblymember Aguiar Curry, you are recognized.

I request unanimous consent to suspend the rules to withdraw SB 828, Smallwood-Cuevas from the Public Safety Committee and order the Bill to the second reading file for the purpose of allowing Assembly Member Haney to take up the bill without reference to file for the purpose of adopting floor amendments.

Mister Flora, you are recognized.

We withhold consent and ask for a roll call vote.

Assembly Member floor is asking for a roll call vote. The majority leader's motion is seconded by Assemblymember. Excuse me, she made the motion seconded by Mister Gibson. This is not debatable. It takes 41 votes. The Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 46. No's eight. The rules are suspended. Assemblymember Haney, we will go now to your item SB 828 without reference to file for the purpose of amendments the clerk will read.

Senate Bill 828 with amendments by Assemblymember Haney.

Member Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. These amendments will simply align SB 525 with the budget year and the urgency clause will ensure that the Bill takes effect immediately when it is passed and signed.

Thank you, Mister Haney. Clerk will open the roll on the amendments. All those vote who desire to vote on the amendments. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote on the amendments, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes.

Ayes 42, Noes 10, pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2, I am now referring SB 828 to the Labor and Employment Committee. Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry you are recognized.

I request unanimous consent to suspend joint Rule 62 A, the file notice requirement to allow the labor and employment Committee to hear SB 828 Durazo on Wednesday, May 22, at a time and in a room to be announced.

Objection. Such shall be the order. Moving back to Assembly Third reading, moving to file item 411 AB 2493 by Assemblymember Pellerin.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2493 by Assembly Member Pellerin and others, an act relating to tenancy.

Assembly Member Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. While many landlords are running above the board businesses, California's housing supply crisis coupled with a lack of knowledge about tenants rights among the average renter presents the perfect window for bad actors.

AB 2493 will also prevent a landlord or property management company from charging a potential applicant a fee to be entered into a waiting list for a rental unit if no rental unit is available at the time or will be available in a reasonable amount of time.

By prohibiting such fees, the bill ensures transparency and prevents applicants from being financially exploited when there is no immediate prospect of securing a rental unit. AB 2493 requires the landlord to either take the first come, first qualified applicant or use a reusable application.

It also requires the landlord to provide a copy of the credit report to the applicant. The amendments I took last week removed the opposition from the California Apartment Association. Overall, AB 2493 aims to protect the rights of rental applicants, prevent them from being subject to unnecessary financial burdens, and promote fairness and transparency in the rental housing market. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 49, noes 4. Measure passes. Moving to file item 412, AB 1849 by Assembly Member Grayson. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1849 by Assembly Member Grayson, an act relating to consumer warranties.

Assembly Member Grayson, you are recognized.

Thank you so much Mister Speaker and Members. AB 1849 allows the buyer of a travel trailer to elect to receive a refund instead of a replacement in the event that a manufacturer or its representative fails to service or repair the trailer after a reasonable number of attempts.

The Bill is a straightforward measure that will help protect consumers who unknowingly purchased defective travel trailers or fifth wheels. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 16 Noes 0. Measure passes. Moving to file item 416, AB 3088 by Assemblymember Friedman, the clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3088 by Assembly Member Friedman and accolade in the criminal procedure.

Assemblymember Friedman, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. AB 3088 seeks to articulate the standard by which procedural barriers can be overcome by innocent individuals attempting to secure their release from prison through habeas corpus petitions. In order for an innocent person to get out of prison, they must file a habeas corpus petition to challenge the legality of their incarceration.

If a petition is deemed untimely or successive in the initial review of the petition, the judge never has to consider the merits of the petition at all. Imagine you're in prison. New evidence has come to light that you're actually innocent, and a judge says, I'm not going to even look at that information because of procedural grounds.

In the absence of a statute under existing case law, these procedural barriers often bar incarcerated people from having their claims heard by a court, even when new evidence of innocence is alleged.

In their case, AB 3088 would allow for habeas petitions implicating a wrongful conviction to be evaluated on their merits rather than immediately being dismissed based only on procedural grounds.

The court would still have discretion as to whether or not there should be a hearing on the merits, so a judge can look at the information, look at the evidence, and decide to not hear the case. But at least with this change, they'll have the ability to have that evidence heard.

My office continues to have conversations with any opposition, and we look forward to addressing their concerns in the Senate. With that, I respectfully request, and I vote so that nobody who has evidence that will set them free is denied a fair hearing. Thank you.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 42, Nos 10. Measure passes, moving to file item 419 AB 2747 by Assemblymember Haney. The clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2747 by Assemblymember Haney and accolading to tenancy.

Mister Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker and Members. I rise to present AB 2747, the Building Renters Credit Act, AB 2747 brings rent reporting up to standard practice by requiring landlords to give tenants the option to opt into reporting their positive rent payments to a credit bureau agency.

Credit scores are designed to reflect the good and the bad of a person's financial history. Usually, if a person misses a credit card payment, their score will go down and if they stay on top of their payments, their score will increase. However, this is not happening when landlords report rent payments to a credit bureau agency.

Millions of renters around the state are paying the rent on time, yet they never see a positive impact on their scores. Unfairly if they ever fall behind, then that negativity can show up on their credit report and bring their scores down.

In order to ensure rent reporting follows the standard practice of what is reported, AB 2747 will require tenants to require landlords to provide tenants the option of reporting their positive rent payments to credit bureaus and allows landlords to collect a fee from the tenant if the tenant opts into the program.

The latest set of amendments removed opposition from both the California Apartments Association and California Association of Realtors. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 46 Noes 7. Measure passes. Moving to file item 424. AB 3021 by Assembly Member Kalra, the clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3021 by Assembly Member Kalra and accolade relating to criminal procedure.

Assembly Member Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker. AB 3021 requires peace officers, prosecuting attorneys, or investigators to identify themselves and explain the rights of individuals being questioned prior to engaging with the immediate family of someone who's been killed or severely injured by a peace officer.

In the aftermath of incidents involving police violence, families of the victim are often approached by authorities under the guise of an interview. Family Members are told to go to the precinct, not given information about the state of their loved one, and often lied to about the incident as they are interrogated.

While the family member is distressed and worried for their loved one, law enforcement officers use this opportunity to coerce information about the victim's past in order to incriminate the deceased and shield officers from liability. Initially perceived by families as isolated incidents.

It has come to light that this practice is a police interrogation tactic promoted by a private entity named Lexapol. Lexapol offers instruction to 95% of our law enforcement agencies on techniques to extract information from families with the aim of protecting officers from legal repercussions and criminal allegations.

Such tactics not only inflict harm upon the victim and their family, but also erode trust and law enforcement. Family members of individuals affected by police violence have a reasonable expectation of transparency about the circumstances surrounding their loved ones without being manipulated.

By putting in a few moments between the incident and interrogation, we can empower families to exercise their rights and interactions with police officers when they are most vulnerable. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 41, Noes 14. Measure passes. Moving to file item 427, AB 1775 by Mister Haney.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1775 by Assembly Member Haney, an act relating to cannabis.

Mr. Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. AB 1775 authorizes existing cannabis consumption lounges and cannabis retailers to diversify their businesses by selling non-cannabis food and non-alcoholic drinks. This is a reintroduction of AB 374, which received broad bipartisan support when it passed out last year.

This is a bill that supports our legal small businesses that just want to diversify their businesses and do the right thing. The illicit illegal market is continuing to grow and thrive while our legal cannabis market is struggling. Small businesses and local governments that want to authorize simply allowing existing cannabis lounges, which already exist in law, to be able to serve food, should be able to do so. The Governor vetoed this, and we've been addressing his concerns.

We've already taken a number of amendments to address the separation that needs to exist between where food is prepared, where employees are, and where people are consuming cannabis. This bill will support our legal cannabis industry to be able to thrive, and it's had bipartisan support, and hopefully we can get it through and signed into law this year. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 49, noes four. Measure passes. Moving to file item 429, AB 2560 by Mr. Alvarez. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2560 by Assembly Member Alvarez and others, an act relating to housing.

Mister Alvarez, you are recognized.

Good morning and thank you, Mister speaker. Colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2560 today, which requires that state density bonus law be implemented inside the coastal zone with exemptions to ensure critical natural resources are not threatened, and I will get into those specifics in a second.

As you all are aware, we are in the midst of a housing crisis that renders countless Californians vulnerable to housing instability and crippling housing costs. In response to this, the Legislature has taken numerous steps in the last several years in order to supply all forms of housing across the state or most of the state.

Although we clearly have a lot of work ahead of us, we have seen evidence from the progress on these essential steps that the Legislature has taken. According to the Housing Community Development Department, last year we added 123,000 units to the overall housing stock, the most since the Great Recession.

However, some of the most successful housing legislation passed and implemented over the years has included carve outs to effectively exempt coastal zones of California. These carve outs have had a huge impact on the lack of housing being built in the coastal areas of our state.

A 2015 LAO report on housing prices in California stated that the housing units in the typical US metro grew by 54%, while most of California's coastal metros only increased by 32%.

Less easy to quantify are the countless units that have gone undeveloped because the majority of developers have completely abandoned trying to build in the coastal area due to the lack of objective building standards that lead to lengthy and cost prohibitive timelines. At its core, AB 2560 is meant to modernize our approach on housing on the coast.

It's a rejection of the status quo, which says that the current process for building and developing affordable housing on our wealthy coastal areas is insufficient.

It's also a recognition that the fact that the lack of objective standards for housing projects in the coastal zone that developers rely on in the rest of our state to take on the risky investment of building housing is no longer acceptable.

I fully appreciate the importance of the coast and as a valuable resource for our state and the need for it to have a layer of protection to stymie development in areas not fit for development, such as wetlands or near cliffs that are subject to sea level rise.

This appreciation is why we are not only we have added exempted areas in this bill that were also part of SB 423 last year. These exemptions include, and I'll reference for everybody on bill page number 21, areas in the coastal zone that are vulnerable to 5ft of sea level rise.

Areas where a parcel within the coastal zone is not zoned for multifamily housing. A parcel in the coastal zone that is within 100 foot radius of a wetland as defined in the Public Resource code or on prime agricultural land, density bonus bill has worked in California well, most of California.

We want it to work for all of California. We believe that every part of this state has to do its part in participating in helping to build housing and allowing affordable housing to be built. Unlike other housing laws, state density bonuses may be the most appropriate housing law to implement on the coast.

A developer can only utilize the incentives and concessions in areas previously determined to be fit for housing. We're not talking about new areas, only areas that have been approved by local cities and counties for multifamily housing to be built. AB 2560 is only asking that we increase the density in these residential areas.

Additionally, I would like to point out what is often lost in these conversations. The lack of housing is more than a housing issue. It's also an equity and environmental matter. For the coastal economy to function, it requires a significant amount of service workers to serve as a backbone.

However, being unable to afford housing near their job sites means that workers expend resources and emit further CO2 into the air to commute to work, compounding the climate crisis. Again, the density bonus law has worked for all of California. We wanted to also work in the coastal areas.

This law, again, pointing you to the bill on page six, means that we include home ownership opportunities which are so limited in California, preservation of affordable housing, adapt for childcare facilities, and all of these things cannot be done today in Coastal California, we think it's time for the coast to participate in solving our housing crisis.

And that's why I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2560.

Thank you Mister Alvarez, Assembly Member Boerner, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. I rise in respectful opposition to AB 2560 as it limits the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act, which was passed by voters in 1972. AB 2560 will allow for dense developments in the coastal zones without going through the Coastal Commission's permitting process.

This means there'd be no consideration for public access to public beaches, minimizing risk to local wildlife and vegetation, risk to local landscapes. That could include future flooding, and many other criteria that the Coastal Commission generally reviews as part of its process.

Limitation of these reviews is against what the voters intended when the Coastal Act was passed, and no other jurisdiction has this authority. The coast is unique in biodiversity, landscape, and therefore the coastal zones have to follow guidelines and regulations that the rest of you do not.

If the author's concern is the inability to get approvals for projects under the density bonus law, I can speak from first hand experience. This is not a concern in my area. During my time on the City's Planning Commission and council, I have not seen a density bonus law project rejected by the Coastal Commission.

To my knowledge, the Coastal Commission has not rejected any projects under the density bonus law in San Diego County. Could they make the approval process more efficient and speedy? Of course, absolutely. But this Bill goes too far in removing the authority without replacing it with another oversight agency.

This means no consideration for negative impacts to coastal areas at all. And on a final point, I've heard the argument for this bill that coastal communities should do what non coastal cities have to do.

Well, if you don't represent a coastal city, let me tell you, there are a ton of things we can't do unilaterally in our cities.

We can't redesign our roads, we can't change parking, we can't improve storm or wastewater and many other things because the Coastal Commission has to check that we're not precluding access to the coast for our visitors who often come from our inland communities.

I understand we have to do more for the housing crisis, but this should not be removing all environmental, coastal protections and access to the coast for many of all of your constituents for a large chunk of our precious coast, I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Boerner. Assemblymember Hart, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members, I rise in respectful opposition to AB 2560. I share the author's goal of addressing the housing crisis in California, but I'm deeply concerned that this bill attempts to address housing affordability at the expense of coastal protection and coastal resources. Coastal protection and housing are not conflicting interests.

The Coastal Act and the Commission were created to safeguard public access, sensitive habitats and ocean waters. The Commission has the challenging task of harmonizing these priorities while also facilitating sustainable coastal development.

Having served as a Coastal Commissioner myself, I've seen firsthand the difficult work the Commission and local governments have been doing to craft local coastal plans to balance the needs of coastal communities, visitors and the environment. AB 2560 will undermine years of dedicated work and undercut local initiatives that are in place to protect our coastlines.

It's important to also note that density bonus concessions and incentives are available to developers who want to build along the coast, as long as they align with the Coastal Act. State and local oversight ensures that developments undergo thorough project based review tailored to the unique needs of each coastal community and its habitat.

In the face of escalating threats posed by climate change, including sea level rise and major storms, robust coastal protections are more crucial than ever. By stripping the Coastal Commission of its authority to require mitigation efforts for bonus density projects, we risk unraveling five decades of coastal protection that have made California's coastline a pillar of environmental stewardship.

I unfortunately cannot support this bill today.

Thank you Mister Hart. Mister Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Great. Thank you Mister speaker. Several years ago I rise in support of this Bill and I'm a proud co author of it. Several years ago, our Governor, Mister Gavin Newsom, said that we needed to build three and a half million houses by a certain date by this decade in order to meet our housing goals.

And he revised the goal to two and a half million. And even that goal is unattainable. And if we keep finding reasons why we can't build housing in places that are intended for housing, that's what's really great about this bill, is it only adds units to, to areas that are already intended for housing.

So if there's an apartment complex there, they can add some more units. That's actually what we should want. We should be not talking about sprawl, because that's what happens if you don't have the density bonus law. You're actually encouraging sprawl. You're encouraging more development along those coastal resources. I think we should keep the coast beautiful.

I like to visit people in my district, we don't have the coast, but right now we are going through Placer County in particular, which is a pro housing county, is going through the RHNA process. And in every community, this is a very divisive conversation.

And it gets harder and harder for every community that decides they don't want housing in their community. It means those of us who live in the inland have to pick up the slack. And that's exactly what's happening.

And so I would encourage my good friends who live on the coast and those beautiful places that I like to visit to allow housing to be built in areas already intended for housing. So because of that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Mister Patterson. Assembly Member Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members. In all due respect to the author, I rise to share several concerns I have regarding AB 2560. While I support dense and affordable housing, overriding the Coastal Act is simply not the right approach to achieve that goal.

And I believe this Bill sets a dangerous precedent of chipping away at coastal protections that make our state unique. First, I want to make the distinction between the coastal zone and coastal areas. The coastal zone only consists of 1% of the state's landmass, but this 1% encompasses some of the most vulnerable habitats to climate change.

It is true, coastal cities have much more expensive housing, and this bill tries to address this. But the boundary of the coastal zone excludes many unaffordable metropolitan areas of the state with high populations. For example, among the least affordable metropolitan area, San Francisco does not have a coastal zone in significantly urbanized areas.

This bill does not directly aid development in infill areas, but instead establishes areas along the coast that will have no coastal review and protections when the density bonus law is applied. Our coastline needs strong protections now more than ever in the wake of sea level rise, storm surges and other impacts of climate change.

The Coastal Commission's review is critical to ensuring the safe siding of developments away from environmental hazards like bluff edges and ensuring public access to the coast. I've seen in my district the intense impact of sea level rise on the coastline.

There are areas where houses are dangerously close to the coastline and a popular Oceanside path that sustains severe damage following the storms of recent years. While I appreciate the environmental standards that were added to the Bill, many of them echoed the exemptions in SB 423, which I did support. But SB 423 was not an exemption.

It streamlined development, and so this bill goes much further in undermining coastal protections. This bill will create areas in the state where protections to our coasts and public access do not apply. This approach is dangerous and unnecessary since local governments can already harmonize their local coastal plans to work with density bonus laws.

Cities like Santa Cruz in my district and Long Beach have updated their local coastal plans to include density bonus provisions, and this is an approach available to many coastal cities without disposing of critical coastal protections.

Additionally, appeals of local projects to the Commission are relatively few, just 6% of local permits in 2023, if all local governments in the coastal zone were required to have a harmonization provision in their local coastal plan, the number of density bonus projects that get appealed to the Commission would be substantially lowered.

Lastly, I might add that these coastal protections are why California's coastline looks vastly different from Miami's coastline. The Coastal Act is not CEQA, and we shouldn't start to override it. For these reasons, and with all due respect to the author, I will not be voting for this measure, and I urge you not to advance this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Pellerin. Assemblymember Grayson, you are recognized.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister speaker and Members, as California grapples with a severe housing crisis, we need innovative solutions to building housing that's affordable, especially in areas where people live and they work.

During my statewide housing tour, I was appalled to see the line of deteriorating RVs parked curbside by a packing plant near the coast, serving as homes for workers who couldn't afford housing or the costly commute from the valley.

Passing by AG fields, I learned that the hard working women and men in that field were feeding the world, but they could not afford to live where they worked. Ensuring that California has the housing that we need is utmost importance since it impacts so many facets of our state, including our economy and our environment.

We have made great progress in making sure that there are as many tools as possible to maximizing housing construction, and the density bonus law has been crucial for desperately needed affordable housing. This bill takes a sensible approach, ensuring that environmentally safe housing can be built along the coast while protecting vital resources and sensitive areas.

Building more housing on the coast should not be viewed as a threat to the environment, but more as an opportunity for more sustainable future. The more housing we are able to build along our coast will greatly benefit our workers and our environment, reducing commute times and greenhouse gas emissions for those driving our coastal economy. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Grayson and Assemblymember Wicks, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill and as the former housing chair would love to add my name as a co author to this measure. This is actually a very simple bill. It's to ensure that in the coast, the density bonus law applies.

And what that means is it means more housing that is not sprawl. It means infill, which is exactly how we should be building our housing. Specifically on the coast. You have low wage workers in particular, in particular, who are disproportionately impacted by the lack of housing on the coast.

Those are disproportionately workers of color who need a place to live, who right now are being pushed further and further and further away from the, the coast, which means they're driving more and more and more to come work in those communities. So it's a very simple Bill. It already has to be zoned multifamily housing.

It's not creating Honolulu or Miami level housing. It's creating more density on the footprint, on the current footprint. So to me, it's a very simple bill.

We've spent the last 67 years of really trying to make it easier to build housing here, which we should do because it's 50 years ago, we started making it really difficult, we made it almost impossible to build multifamily housing in California.

And so we are starting to unravel some of that really exclusionary policy that we've created here in California. And this is the next example of what we need to do to make sure that we're building the housing that we need to build here in California. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote I for this.

I'd love to be added as a co author. And if you want to help solve the housing crisis in California, press the green button. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wicks. Assemblymember Ward, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would just echo the comments from my colleague from Berkeley and what I want to thank my neighbor, our colleague from San Diego as well, for authoring this bill. Folks, as the current Assembly's Housing and Community Development chair. Just wanted to really underscore again the density bonus law exists.

And we've had that debate, and I'm grateful that it is now law for the production of affordable housing.

And so I just am frustrated when I hear conversations that want to have it both ways, that we need more affordable housing, especially in coastal areas, but we don't want to be able to provide it because of this, that or the other, because this is so narrowed.

Look, we have a land use process for local jurisdictions and we have accelerated that because of the density bonus use. But you have that additional important layer of review under the Coastal Act, and it's reflected in many of our local coastal plans.

This really marries and aligns the two when you're making sure through AB 2560 that our direction under for a local jurisdiction is reflected for the types of developments, multifamily developments on existing lands with the same built in protections to make sure that the very areas that we do not want to harm under the Coastal Act, your wetlands, areas that are very sensitive, environmentally sensitive, that those are also protected and baked into this bill, just like we worked on that negotiation under SB 423.

This is a sensible win win that will extend the very same kinds of provisions that we want to see for affordable housing right where our workers work in our community. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote on 2560.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. Assemblymember Quirk Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and Members, I stand in strong support of AB 429. Ladies and gentlemen, we have spent hours on this floor in our committees over the last handful of years debating, talking about how do we solve our housing crisis, crisis in California, what do we do about homelessness.

And as we have made many votes to move forward with housing, there continues to be an echo of voices that say, not here, not there, not over here, not where the mountain lions are, not where the wild flowers are, not on the coast, not in fire areas.

In essence, trying to exempt California from the north to the south. Ladies and gentlemen, I love our beaches. My children grew up there. We have some of the most beautiful, iconic coast in California that matches the world.

But that simply should not mean that we don't attempt to bring some parity to the communities who are building housing in very, very urban areas and keep piling on from one community and not others. There has to be parity.

There has to be an attempt to say, if we are going to have the montage resort, and we know those hospitality workers are driving for an hour or more to get into those jobs, then we need to look at building affordable housing.

If we know that there are individuals picking crops and they have to travel, or as we have seen with fires that were impacted and they're living in containers, this is not acceptable. If every community would do just a little bit, a little bit more and do more than they've done in the past.

The Coastal Commission is 52 years old. We were not talking about housing as we were talking now. We did not have the crisis, but it's because of our inaction for decades that we are in the scenario we are in today. And we must look at all areas of California.

And we can do this elegantly, we can do this carefully, but we cannot exempt the coast of California from housing. I urge your aye vote on AB 429.

That's actually AB 2560, item 429 though. So just for clarification, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Mr. Muratsuchi, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. I rise in opposition to this measure. And let me just say there's a lot of false statements being made about this bill. Number one, coastal cities have to comply with the density bonus laws just as much as any other city. It's just that, because of our iconic coast, because of the sensitive habitats on the coast, that California voters passed the Coastal Act in order to provide an additional layer of review to make sure that, in our efforts to build more housing, that we're not doing it at the expense of protecting our beautiful, iconic coasts.

So no one is talking about, you know, stopping any building in coastal cities. What we are saying, as our colleague from Santa Cruz said, is that our valuable, beautiful coast needs to be protected. And it shouldn't be an either or choice of building more housing at the expense of destroying something so precious in the State of California.

I ask you to consider that our coast absolutely deserves to be protected. It absolutely deserves to have the additional layer of review for the cumulative impact of all the development on our coastal environments, our coastal beauty. And for that reason, I ask you to vote no for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi. Assembly Member Juan Carrillo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of AB 2560, and I'm not going to repeat what some Members have said. I just see that no one in the bill does it say that the coast has to be destroyed by building more housing. I believe that equity has to be distributed across the state and not select areas of the state where housing is not supposed to be built. Again, Members have talked about how we strive to get more housing, but when we select places where these resources are not supposed to be built for the sake of preserving our coast.

No one's saying that the coast should not be saved. No, the bill does not say that. There is also a lot of other implications where we keep building housing inland, where our constituents have to drive for two or three hours to get to work in the hospitality area.

Those are the cities of Santa Monica, Malibu, all of those areas where they are beautiful places, and we have to keep them. But it is just not fair when we in this very floor talk about equity and distribution of resources across the state and we look for ways to not build and deliver the things that the state needs, like housing.

And again, I'm going to repeat everything that's been said already, but I just wanted to let you know that I really urge your aye vote on this because we need to solve this housing crisis, and we need to support housing mechanisms to make sure that we provide equitable resources across the state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Assembly Member Carrillo. Assembly Member Hoover, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill. You know, our caucus talks a lot about affordability and how expensive and difficult it is for people to live in California. And one of the greatest drivers of costs and our affordability crisis in California is the cost of our housing.

The best way to solve this problem is by increasing our housing supply. But in order to do that, we are going to need every community to do its part. And so I just want to thank my colleague from San Diego for bringing this bill forward as a very creative and simple solution to start moving us in that direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Hoover. Assembly Member Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not planning to speak, but I've enjoyed the discussion, and I am rising to speak in opposition to AB 2560. As many of you know, I represent many cities in my district are on the coastal zone. So the Coastal Commission is a fact of life in our coastal cities. And it is before we as a body make some fundamental changes to the Coastal Act, I think many issues, several important, critical, structural issues related to the Coastal Act need to be considered. Many of you go to the beaches.

You see, if you are lucky to go to the beaches and find a place to park, you're very lucky that day. So density is already a way of life in our beach cities. Lack of parking and infrastructure, bus routes, it's all been changed because of the difficulty of accessing the coastal zone because of the density that exists.

I do want to mention the high density and also a critical, until we pass change the rules of the Coastal Act, we should be looking at the Coastal Commission's policy, stated policy of I think it's called retreat and that they are discouraging construction of all types in the coastal zone because of the projections of sea level rise.

And so new construction is under severe limits. In fact, if there are hardscape improvements proposed or applied to, to the coastal zone, they are rejected because you can't build permanent structures, any new permanent structures that retard the sea level rise.

So I think before we take this action, we have to consider really the implications of increasing the density that exists in our coastal zone into multi, just multifamily. There's a lot of, in my district, there's tremendous rental properties, tremendous multi-living rental properties. So I'm just trying to think, as I said, I wasn't prepared to speak on this. I don't know where they're going to build. Even an infill, it's very difficult to build because of the lack of parking.

If this were to go forward without a concession, because density bonus law does not require additional parking requirements, then I think we're going to be in a serious problem. And with the retreat strategy, with sea level rise, and the Coastal Commission already preventing development, we've got a lot.

In my opinion, we have a lot more things to really consider before we pass this. We all need housing. I should say one other point. In my districts, most of the, well, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Laguna Beach, have all met on time their RHNA requirements, a Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

They have a housing element that satisfies the requirement for affordable housing in these cities. They were passed in my city of Newport Beach were passed long before the deadline. No problem. We're building or zoning for over 5000 housing units in Newport Beach in infill property.

So we are doing what we need to do to satisfy housing requirements and also to protect our beaches and our coastline. So I think we could do both. It's not impossible. I'm not aware of any city that cannot comply with this. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Dixon.

I'm going to vote no.

Thank you. Assembly Member Alvarez, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would. I don't know if some of my colleagues sometimes feel the way that I do about bills. Is it, is the issue you're working on worth the debate and worth the discussion? Is it going to do enough, or is it just perhaps going to grab a headline or something? I'll tell you, my approach and the things that I work on is I'm trying to make a real difference. And the density bonus law has worked in the State of California. I think there was a mention that in places like San Francisco this doesn't apply.

Actually, San Francisco is one of the best examples of where density bonus is working really, really well. A bill that I had last year that was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor is being utilized to build home ownership opportunities in San Francisco that have been a struggle for all of California.

I've heard also a couple of things that I wanted to just reply about. We are not eliminating a CEQA process from this. You still have to go through the California Environmental Quality Act in order to get a project to move forward. That means if there's mitigation to be done, it will be done.

If a project cannot be built on a specific site because of a particular reason, natural resource or other, it will not happen. If a project is not even on a multi-housing development site, a project won't even be considered for density bonus. So if you disagree that multifamily housing should not be allowed in your coastal cities, you should be talking to your cities to not allow it.

Because this bill would only allow density bonus to happen where your local city or your local county has said, we believe that multifamily housing is appropriate on this site, and this bill only allows you to use density bonus on that site. And even beyond that, we have included things that would even make it more challenging to build housing. If you are within... Please read page 21 of my bill. If you are within 100ft of a wetland, you would be unable to build.

If you are in a coastal zone that is vulnerable to sea level rise, as that was raised as a concern by many of my colleagues, then it's not available. So it is a very selective. And that's where I started making my comments, my closing comments. Is it worth it?

It is selective, but is it important. Because we have to continue to build housing everywhere in California. I've also heard some arguments about harmonizing. What does harmonizing mean? There are three bullet points in the floor alert for this bill that some of you have seen. Two of them aren't very clear. There's one about harmonizing. Harmonizing is something that cities could do today, regardless of this bill. If your city wants to harmonize their policies with the coast, they can do so. Nothing prevents them from doing that.

So all this bill does is require that our coastal areas of California, which are important, significant, beautiful, and wonderful, and make our state what it is, can continue to be so, but also are inclusive of people who the Coastal Act 50 years ago, we have to just acknowledge, is a relic of past decisions that left a lot of people out of those decision making processes.

And in this case, if you have a community where you have a mansion that's on the bluff, that is in risk of potentially eroding because of erosion or sea level rise, you cannot build on that site. There are a lot of protections. And so we need to start to modernize where we can allow housing to be built.

We have required it, and everybody thought it was a good idea in all of California, some very strong voices oppose it on the coast. And I think it's time that we start to talk about everywhere in California should do its part in building affordable housing. And for that reason, I ask for an aye vote. I also... One last thing.

I'd say in a year when our budget shows that we have no funding for, essentially, for affordable housing development, this is a tool where we can build affordable housing without any taxpayer dollars. And that's why I ask that you vote yes on AB 2560. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. And with that closed, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 50, noes five. Measure passes. Going to pass and retain on file item 431.

Moving down to item 434. AB 1899. Miss Cervantes by Mister Ward, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1899 by Assembly Member Cervantes and an act related to courts.

Assemblymember Ward, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. On behalf of my colleague from Riverside, I rise to present AB 1899. This Bill seeks to make juror questionnaires more inclusive of those fulfilling civic duty by requiring superior courts to ask prospective jurors for their pronouns in more inclusive formats.

Additionally, this Bill would require any questions about the prospective jurors family or personal relationships, including spouses or parents, to be asked using language that's inclusive of LGBTQ partnerships and families. AB 1899 is one of our LGBTQ caucus priority bills. Has no registered opposition. Received bipartisan support.

On behalf of my colleague from Riverside, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1899.

Thank you, Mister Ward. Seeing and hearing no further debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 47, noes five measure passes. Moving to file item 437.

AB 3281, a bill by the Committee on Judiciary presented by Mr. Kalra. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3281 by the Committee on Judiciary, an act relating to state government.

Mr. Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. AB 3281 is the Judiciary Committee's Annual Civil Law Omnibus bill. This bill contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of the committee, thus saving the Legislature from having to consider at least a dozen additional bills. All the changes in the bill are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 48, noes 9. Measure passes.

Moving to file item 438 AB 20712 by Assembly Member Friedman. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 20712 by Assembly Member Friedman and others and act related to land use.

Assembly Member Friedman, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. Members 20712 is a district Bill that only affects the state City of Los Angeles.

So many of you remember last year, when I authored a Bill that was supported on a bipartisan basis to say that developers who were building within a half a mile of a transit stop could figure out how much parking their developments needed.

When we did that, when it came to housing, the idea was that a developer would add as much parking as they thought their development needed, but in addition, possibly add less parking spaces for people who didn't have vehicles, who were transit dependent or taking transit or maybe needed one car instead of the two cars that the building might have required.

That Bill passed and it was a bipartisanly supported Bill and now it is creating more housing in Los Angeles.

But there's been one unintended side effect that we didn't anticipate, which was that there are buildings that are going up in areas where they hadn't permanently allowed housing because they were commercial roads, that only allowed for, for office buildings and for shops, that because of other legislation that we have done in the state now are eligible for housing.

And what's happening is that in some very small areas, the people who are building those buildings are saying that they are in the preferential parking zones that are being used by the neighborhoods behind their development.

These are areas that where this is happening that are some of the densest parts of the City of Los Angeles, areas where we have older neighborhoods with a real lack of parking and a scarcity of curbside parking. So the idea was never to invite 3, 4, 500 more units into these areas and have everybody bring the cars in.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. We wanted people self selecting into these buildings with blessed parking who were people who were going to use the transit that was right in front of these very buildings. Those were the people that the neighborhood said, yes, bring in those people.

Just don't bring in all the traffic congestion and all of the cars. But what the developers are doing in some cases is they are demanding preferential parking passes for all of the residents of those buildings. That was not anticipated by our Bill.

It was counter to the goals of the Bill, which was to give people lower cost units without a parking space if they want to be able to use transit and to encourage cities to invest in transit. So this is a compromise that would exempt residents in the residential developments that are parking developments if they use 2097.

That was that Bill that exempted parking unless the developments are 20 units or less or are deed restricted intended for households that are very Low income households, extremely Low income households or lower income households.

And it also allows for the city to have a hearing and make a finding that they can give the permits, if they so choose, to, that building. It gives more local control back to the City of Los Angeles to decide whether or not those new buildings should have preferential parking for the neighborhoods that are behind them.

There's a lot of local support for this Bill. There is no registered opposition that we are aware of and I would request an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you Assembly Member Friedman. Assembly Member Zbur, you are recognized.

Mister speaker, Members, I rise in strong support of AB 20712 and want to thank my colleague from Glendale from bringing this Bill. As the author indicated, I'm proud to be a co author of the Bill.

This Bill prohibits local authorities in the City of Los Angeles for providing parking permits to residents, vendors and visitors as specified development projects under certain conditions. Basically, AB 20712 closes some unintended loopholes created by AB 2097 that has had adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods in my district.

This is a City of LA Bill, and it gives the city tools and the flexibility to represent to regulate curbside parking equitably. And one of the things that it does, it's very notable, is it protects parking for people living in affordable housing. That is a really important component. There's no opposition in this.

It's a City of Los Angeles Bill, and it really gives the city the tools to handle curbside parking in an equitable way. So with that, I want to thank the author again. This is a great Bill. I'm in strong support of it, and ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Mister Zbur. Seeing and hearing no further debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 47, Nos eight, measure passes.

Moving to file item 440, AB 2755 by Assemblymember Wicks, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2755 by Assemblymember Wicks, an act relating to the payment of claims against the state and making an appropriation, therefore declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Assemblymember Wicks, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. AB 2755 appropriates 523,500 from the General Fund to the Attorney General to pay three specified claims against the state. This Bill is one of several bills authored by the chair of either the Senate or Assembly Appropriations committees to provide statutory authority for legal settlements approved by the Department of Justice and Finance.

AB 2755 has an urgency clause and enjoys support support recommendation from both caucuses. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 59 no 0 on the urgency. Ayes 59 no 0 on the bill.

Measure passes moving to file item 441, AB 2729 by Mister Joe Patterson. Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 2729 by Assembly Member Joe Patterson and others an act relating to land use.

Assembly Member Patterson, you are recognized.

Great. Thank you Mister Speaker, Mister speaker Members, I'm proud to present AB 2729. In short, what AB 2729 does would delay the collection of development impact fees from when a building permit is pulled to certificate of occupancy.

However, we have made substantial amendments to address many of the concerns expressed by my colleagues in both the local government and housing committees. For example, if the taxpayer is going to be on the hook, that is, there is a bond that needs to be paid off or infrastructure has already been completed.

The City Council can make findings to get the money up front. We also allow the collection of fees in the event public infrastructure is going to be built in the next two years.

But what we don't want at the end of the day is millions of dollars in fees to be paid on a housing project, to sit in a CIP Fund somewhere. And let me give you an example. When I was on the City Council, I come from local government. We were trying to address the housing crisis.

We had a project where one particular fee was going to cost $3 million upfront. Those fees weren't going to a particular project such as improving the infrastructure around it. They were going to sit in a Fund with 1010s of millions of dollars already in it with no immediate project in sight.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, the fees will get paid. I know some folks still have some concerns. I continue to meet with the stakeholders did just last Thursday in this process and our goal is to ensure that taxpayers are never on the hook.

Lastly, I want to thank the Chairs and Members of both the local government and housing committees. I genuinely appreciate your input through this process and helped improve this Bill and we will continue to improve it throughout the process. As you know, I have taken your input and put that into my Bill.

I appreciate the engagement, because I'm committed to getting this right. It means a lot that many of you engage in real policy discussions on this measure and haven't just dismissed it. And I'm very thankful of my colleague from Palmdale and the chair of the local government Committee.

Despite concerns that he expressed in Committee, he did not give up on me and took me seriously. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Patterson. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll and tally the vote. Ayes 41 no zero measure passes. Moving to file item 443 AB 1827 by Assembly Member Papen. Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 1827 by Assembly Member Papan, an act relating to local government finance.

Assembly Member Papan, you are recognized. Maybe.

Thank you so much, Mister speaker and Members. I rise today to present AB 1827, which will help preserve water providers ability to pay to fairly allocate costs. In every community, there are water users who use more water than the other water users, and there are those that use less. It's just a fact of life.

Water customers who use more water than others. Similarly, acetylated customers increase the water supplier's overall cost of providing water service due to the higher costs associated with building, operating, and maintaining a larger water system that can meet those larger water demands.

Prop 218 allows water suppliers to recoup the legitimate costs attributable to that higher water use from those higher water using customers. Recent lawsuits, however, have sought to call this into question.

Trial courts have sought to impose new and increasingly granular requirements beyond those required by Prop 218 on water suppliers who seek to justify charging higher water users for the costs associated with their higher water use.

AB 828 simply preserves Prop 2018's proportionality and cost of service principles and allows water suppliers to continue using the reasonable methods they have used for decades to allocate costs among customers and set water rates. I respect the request and I vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 43, nos. 13 measure passes.

Moving down to file item 446, AB 3172, the very patient Assemblymember Lowenthal, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3172 by Assembly Member Lowenthal, an act relating to obligations.

Assemblymember Lowenthal, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and Members. I hope you all agree with me that the number one job of policymakers is to protect its citizens and it's our culture in California to apply additional focus on the most vulnerable.

Well, I think we can all agree that children are particularly vulnerable citizens, and we are failing our children and derelict in our mission when we knowingly allow harm to come to them under our watch. AB 3172 is very straightforward.

It will help to hold social media platforms accountable for harm they cause to children and teenagers in our great state. Quite simply, we are asking that social media companies to do what we ask of every other consumer product company in California to be responsible for harm they cause to children.

We do this for companies that make toys, that make helmets, that make seatbelts, that make sleeping bags, car seats, that make bicycles, scooters, so on and so forth. This is not a new issue, but rather, it's getting louder and louder by the day. And we all know where this is going.

The Federal Government, California, multiple other states, blue states, red states, and many of our allies overseas have long sought ways to hold social media companies accountable for negative impacts their platforms are having on the well being of children and teens.

Anecdotally, this is an issue that every single parent I've come across is frustrated with every parent, every person in this body that I've talked to on both sides of the aisle, and it's driven by data. This issue is magnified by a truly alarming drop in children's mental health over the last 10 years, and particularly for girls.

And it's getting worse. We cannot sit idly by while we watch dramatic, unprecedented rises in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and suicide by our children. How can we sit by? Young people are spending, on average. Embrace yourselves for this. 5 hours per day on social media. Young people are spending, on average, 5 hours per day on social media.

Is there any other environment where we send our kids into, without clearly understanding the safety protections affording to us as their custodians, anything? Think about the protections we have for our kids in every other environment. I must make myself perfectly clear. I'm not against social media at all.

And like all of you in this chamber, use social media as a powerful communications vehicle. As a parent, I see the positive effect some social media tools have on connecting young people.

I just want social media companies to much more vigorously step up to the plate and be responsible partners that take safety and well being of our children as seriously as they do their profits. I'm so proud to say that this bill moved with overwhelming bipartisan support through both Privacy and Judiciary committees.

And I thank these members then, and I thank all of you today for the very thoughtful approach to this legislation. Indeed, we have reached a watershed moment in time. Now, the opposition has said many things to scare you from supporting this bill. So let's talk about what this bill does and what this bill does not do.

This bill would impose specific financial responsibility on large social media companies only if their negligence has been proven in court. This isn't about limiting kids expression or access whatsoever. Nothing, nothing in this bill dictates content. Nothing in this bill restricts young people from using the Internet or any particular platform.

And nothing in this bill changes California's underlying standards into what constitutes negligence. Nothing. This bill does not change the standard of liability at all. All companies already owe an ordinary duty of care to all users of their products.

This bill merely assigns specific damages if a social media company is found to have violated existing negligence law under 1714 A and the breach of ordinary care and skilled to a child under the age of 18.

But the net effect of AB 3172 will undoubtedly make social media companies more responsible for the way they design and operate their platforms and the effect they have on our kids to focus on safety measures and wellness rather than focusing on addiction. My colleagues, this is our moment to stand up for children, teens, and families in California.

I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lowenthal, Assemblymember Bauer Kahan, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker and Members, I rise in support of AB 3172. As the Member from I never know where, I shouldn't say that. Long Beach. Thank you. The Member from Long Beach really said it very well. I think this Bill is incredibly important.

When we send our kids or ourselves, frankly, into any environment, we know that liability attaches if they harm us, if they don't take ordinary care to keep us safe, it means when we walk into a store, we know they're going to make sure that we don't slip and fall and hurt ourselves.

It's what makes our communities safe and makes businesses rise to the level where they keep us and our families safe. And yet, at the advent of the Internet, we as a nation decided that innovation was paramount and protecting our communities maybe wasn't as important.

And so we said that social media companies had no liability for any harm they caused. And I think that we have come to the point where we've realized that decision, well, maybe it wasn't the one we should have made. Our kids are being harmed.

As the author said, the statistics around suicide and depression in our young people are staggering. One in four teens are thinking about suicide. One in four. And we know that a piece of that is what is happening after hours on these social media platforms.

And we know from the whistleblowers in Congress that these companies know that they can do more to protect our kids, and they're not making those choices. And so what the law has always said is that a business needs to take ordinary care. It's not so much to ask, and yet that's all we're asking in this bill.

And so I ask each of you to vote for this, because we need to continue to take steps in the right direction to make sure that first and foremost, these companies are protecting our kids.

And as the author said, it doesn't change the standard of liability, but it does attach some sort of monetary fine if they harm people, which is what we expect of every other business in California. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. Assemblymember Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of this Bill. I am the Vice Chair of the Privacy Committee that went through and joined with our chair to support this.

And honestly, I think, you know, I guess I kind of will speak for members of my caucus on the Committee, is that I think we all came in there thinking we would either oppose or lay off the bill.

And first of all, I got to say it was one of the craziest hearings that I've ever been a part of in the Legislature. And, and a lot of things have come out since then.

And I've had some great conversations with the author and frankly, I do think there are some things that need to be fixed in the bill.

I do have some concerns with the liability provisions, and I've met with the opponents of the measure, and hopefully we can come up with something that is fair and just for everybody, but particularly our children.

And I think one of the examples that actually was given by our chair in a separate hearing on a separate item was if you can be on an app and you can say that your birthday is, you know, you're six years old, and the terms of service themselves, they say, hey, you can't look at certain content if you're six years old and, you know, that particular platform knows you're six years old and you become seven years old and eight years old, and then all of a sudden you're 21 years old because you went in and you changed the date of your birth, and now you can see content that even the own terms of service said you should not be viewing.

That's definitely not ordinary care, that's not showing due care for the child. And so I think there are, look, we still have some more time to work on this. I know it's tough to look at it and say, hey, look, it's a perfect bill now let's go for it.

But the issue itself is so important, and I think it's, we have to continue the discussion and we have to continue to work with stakeholders as well. And that includes the opponents.

But I think the issue is so important that I'm willing to support it today even though it's not perfect, and I've seen that happen on other bills, including my last bill that I presented recently here. So thank you for that.

But, but let's keep this process going so we can keep, when we know there's something that our children are being impacted and that our children are able to go in there and say hey, I want to see content that you specifically don't want me to see.

And you know that you can't just, you can't, you can't just ignore that there is a problem with that. So with that, I'm very happy to support this measure.

And the author, I think he'll tell you in his closing statement, hopefully that he's going to be interested in continuing to work on this measure with me and I look forward to joining with him in that. So with that I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Mister Patterson, Mister Hoover, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. I won't repeat a lot of what was just said. I think I do align myself with the comments from my colleague from Rockland.

I know my colleague from Long Beach is going to continue to work on this bill based on our conversations on this, but I really just want to thank him for his work on this really important issue.

He mentioned some things that should all be alarming to us in his opening statement about rising suicide rates, rising rates of depression, rising rates of isolation and suicidal ideation. All of these rates started to tick up around 2010, and we all know what changed in 2010. Something that had never existed prior to that.

Much greater access to smartphones that did not exist prior to that, and much, much greater access to social media.

I think we're going to look back on this period 20, 30, 40 years from now and really question and ask ourselves what could we have done to better protect the most vulnerable, what could we have done to better protect our children?

And one of the concerning things that I took from the privacy hearing is that there is not enough of an acknowledgement that these services and that these platforms are causing harm to the youngest people in our society.

And I think that we're not going to truly be able to fix that problem until we acknowledge that there are some harms being caused. And so with that, I am going to support the bill this time around. Obviously want to look forward to continuing being a part of the process as it moves forward, but would urge you aye vote thank you.

Thank you Mister Hoover. Seeing no further debate, Mister Lowenthal, would you like to close?

Yeah, just very briefly, I just want to say how proud I am to serve with folks who have differing viewpoints that can come together on issues like this.

And I echo the sentiment from my colleague from Rockland said very clearly, the debate in the Privacy Committee that day was one that we will remember probably for the rest of our lives, where we all were able to kind of step out of ourselves for a second and really stop and think what exactly is happening to families right now.

And I want to report to everybody here that since that Committee debate, we have been approached by all of the majors in social media companies, all of whom understand that the time is now for this legislation and they want to work with us on changing their trajectory and really be focused on wellness as it relates to children.

So I appreciate the support that you're able to give this Bill. Absolutely willing to work to continue to strengthen it as it goes through the legislative process. Respectfully ask for your aye vote today

And with that the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes.

Ayes 57 Noes 0. Measure passes, we're going to move back to introductions for a moment here. Joining us in the gallery are fellows, the Cape Fellows from UC Merced, joined here by former Assembly Member Adam Gray. Please welcome these fellows to the floor of the Assembly today. Thank you and welcome.

And I don't think I've ever seen Assembly Member gray in the gallery. Whoops. Moving on to file item 448 AB 2847 by Assembly Member Addis. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2847 by Assembly Member Addis and others, an act relating to electrical and gas corporations.

Assembly Member Addis, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. I rise to present AB 2847 the Ratepayer Transparency and Accountability act. It's no secret that energy rates are skyrocketing, impacting real people across California. Families are struggling to pay their monthly bills, and with no end in sight, we are left wondering just how high bills will climb.

It's time for us to provide relief. Residents of our state deserve to know two things, what to expect when they open their monthly energy Bill, and that all of the costs included in their Bill are fair and reasonable.

AB 2487 will shine a light on the long term impacts of utilities choices and will require utilities to provide information about the long term costs of their capital expenses upfront when making their case to the Public Utilities Commission.

This will ensure that the Commission, rate payer advocates and hardworking Californians have the information they need to determine whether utilities should be allowed to pass these costs along to their along to their customers. AB 2847 will bring much needed transparency and accountability to California's energy rates, and I respectfully request your I vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 41 noes. 11 measure passes. Moving to file item 449, AJR 15 by Assembly Member Erwin.

The Clerk will read Assembly joint resolution 15 by Assembly Member Erwin and others relative to taxation.

Assembly Member Erwin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to present Assembly Joint Resolution 15, which urges the US Congress to lift the cap on state and local tax deduction.

With the April 15 filing deadline just a few weeks ago, Californians once again felt the sting of the short sighted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which capped the deduction, this deduction at $10,000 for both married and single tax filers. Congress must lift the cap on salt deductions so that hardworking families are not unfairly penalized.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and that the first roll will be open for co authors.

Senator Low, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mister speaker and colleagues. I thank my colleague from Thousand Oaks for bringing this resolution forward and urging parody from Congress in the State of California. Many Californians deserve the type of equity with tax laws and respectfully ask for I vote.

Thank you, Senator Low. And you've asked for co authors, correct. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll for co authors. For ajr 115 co authors. Excuse me, ajr 15 all those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes.

There are 54 co authors added without objection. We'll take a voice vote on the resolution. I didn't know that we have to do a we have to do a roll call vote because it's a joint resolution. So the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 54 no, zero. Measure passes. Moving to file item 451, AB 2283 by Assemblymember Pacheco.

The Clerk will read Assembly Bill 2283 by Assembly Member Pacheco, an act relating to civil actions and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Assembly Member Pacheco, you are recognized.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker and Members. Today, I rise to present Assembly Bill 2283. AB 2283 will assist the courts to become a fully functioning e-service provider in recent efforts to modernize court systems to ensure seamless and reliable access to digitized documents and clarify that e-service includes both the electronic transmission and electronic notification of documents. AB 2283 will extend by one year the deadline for courts to serve all consenting parties electronically and will change one word to clarify and improve electronic service. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. This bill requires 54 votes, Members. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 57, noes zero on the urgency. Ayes 57, noes zero on the bill. The measure passes. Moving to file item 452, AB 2159 by Assembly Member Maienschein. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2159 by Assembly Member Maienschein, an act relating to common interest developments.

Assembly Member Maienschein, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Members. AB 2159 will authorize a common interest development to use an electronic voting system for a narrow list of measures to include approving governing documents and electing board members. This method of voting attempts to address a key issue in current association elections, that of voter apathy. It is permissive. It is being used in 27 other states and has proven to be safe, protective, and cost effective. The bill represents a solution to increase homeowner participation while also reducing costs. Thank you, and I respectfully request and aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll and tally the vote. Ayes 60, noes zero. Measure passes.

Moving to file item 454, AB 2837 by Assembly Member Barrack Cahan. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2837 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan and an accolade to civil actions.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members, I rise to present AB 2837 a measure that protects Low income consumers who are subject to debt collection judgment by preserving their retirement savings, ensuring due process and accuracy in wage garnishments and bank levies, and providing that amounts wrongfully seized are returned to the consumer.

Consumers are not aware of a collection judgment until their wage are being garnished. Unless they are notified, they often encounter significant delays, ranging from weeks to months, in reclaiming those funds that are vital for their daily needs. These delays exacerbate vulnerabilities, leading to Bill defaults, further debt accumulation, housing instability, and food insecurity.

Nothing in this Bill eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to repay debts. AB 2837 ensures proper recourse for consumers who do not receive the required notice, whose wages are over garnished, or whose bank accounts are overlevied. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 41, noes 11 measure passes when it passed temporarily on item 455.

Moving to file item 458, AB 3025 by Assembly Member Valencia. Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3025 by Assembly Member Valencia and others, an act relating to the county employees retirement.

Assembly Member Valencia, you are recognized.

Buenas tardes, Mr. Speaker. AB 3025 establishes a process to ensure that county employees receive their negotiated retirement benefits without penalties, even if certain compensation is disallowed. This bill has bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 59, noes zero. Measure passes.

Moving to file item 459 AB 2013 by Assembly Member Erwin the Clerk will read Assembly Bill 2013 by Assembly Member Erwin and accolade to artificial intelligence.

Assembly Member Irwin, you are recognized. Thank you Mister speaker. I'm pleased to present AB 2013, which requires developers of artificial intelligence systems and services to disclose to the public high level summary information about their training data. AI has become nearly unavoidable in Californians daily lives.

However, consumer confidence in AI has not grown at the same rapid pace as industry adoption. Many consumers have vowed valid questions about how AI systems and services are created and if they truly are better than what they seek to replace.

To build consumer confidence, we need to start with the foundation of AI models, and that is the selection of training data. I've recently received some redline feedback from the chamber and their coalition, and I look forward to working with them in the Senate. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 44, Nos six measure passes. Moving to file item 460, AB 2741 by Assembly Member Haney.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2741 by Assembly Member Haney, an act relating to rental passenger vehicles.

Assembly Member Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. AB 2741 is a response to the increase of rental car thefts occurring in California. Right now, rental cars are being stolen at alarming rates, with rental car companies reporting that they have seen a 266% increase in vehicle thefts over the past three years.

Unfortunately, rental car companies do not have the ability to intervene in a timely fashion. Under current law, when a car is missing or stolen, tracking systems cannot be legally activated until the car has been missing for 72 hours past its return time. By the time tracking systems are allowed to be activated, the vehicles are being recovered severely damaged or with stolen goods, mail, and packages inside.

AB 2741 will allow rental car companies to initiate vehicle recovery 24 hours after an individual fails to return a vehicle, allowing them to intervene before a car has left the country, aided in a crime, or broken down. It has received unanimous bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seen and hearing no further debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 60, noes zero. Measure passes. Moving to file item 462, AB 1819 by Assembly Member Waldron. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1819 by Assembly Member Waldron, an act relating to local government.

Assembly Member Waldron, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and Members, I rise to present AB 1819, authorizing special infrastructure financing districts in high or very high fire severity zones. By directing resources toward these high risk areas, AB 1819 ensures that the most vulnerable communities are better protected against future wildfires.

These districts will generate funds specifically for wildfire mitigation efforts, such as heavy equipment to clear vegetation, creating firebreaks, and hardening infrastructure. In a time where we face a budget deficit, creating a program that does not raise taxes nor impact the budget is very much making sense. I urge an Aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 60, Nos zero measure passes. Moving to file item 463, AB 2457 by Assembly Member McCarty.

Assembly Bill 2457 by Assembly Member McCarty and accolade to the Municipal Utility District Act.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Member McCarty, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. This is a district Bill that removes a sunset and makes permanent a law that I wrote five years ago allowing our local utility, the smud public power agency, to partner into non stock financial partnerships to help them keep rates Low and get on the path to 100% clean energy. Respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Aye's 55, No's zero. Measure passes.

Moving now to file item 464, AB 2791 by Assembly Member Wilson. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2791 by Assembly Member Wilson, an act relating to local government.

Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2791, a bill that will allow local governments to choose to enact an ordinance to restrict the operations of sidewalks within 200ft of a fairground during the time of their annual fair.

California fairgrounds currently provide 30,000 permanent jobs and generate more than 3.5 billion in annual economic activity, while contributing over 200 million in tax revenue to local and state government. Annual fairs alone draw nearly 10 million attendees, highlighting their importance to local economies and communities.

AB 2791 gives local governments the power to tailor decisions to their communities, offering a tool to improve operational strategies during significant local events such as fairs. The proposed ordinance would be active only during the days the fairgrounds host the annual fairs.

This targeted approach ensures the ordinance does not overextend beyond necessary times. And it also lives up to the spirit of SB 946 as it relates to certified farmers markets and permitted swap meets. AB 2791 responds to a direct need for local autonomy and managing significant community events.

By supporting AB 2791, legislators can protect the interests of local businesses and maintain the cultural and economic integrity of California's cherished annual affairs. This bill has no opposition and has passed with unanimous support in Local Government Committee.

By granting local governments the authority to regulate sidewalk vending in close proximity to fairs, this bill ensures that these cherished events can operate smoothly, support local businesses, and continue to offer a secure and enjoyable environment for all attendees. Therefore, I thank you all and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson. Assembly Member Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I'm trying to get my name up the rankings of CalMatters Digital Democracy most talkative Members. But I rise in support of this bill, we obviously, we have two fairgrounds in my district. And the economy around them is really dependent during the fairs when they're occurring, actually, people going in there and buying the food and enjoying the commerce that's existing within the fair itself. Because of that, and supporting the local fairs...

I mean, nobody's ever heard that their community fair is rich and, you know, have these beautiful, awesome buildings. They're usually in deferred maintenance and things like that. So I think it's really important to support our local fairs, and appreciate you bringing this measure. And I ask my colleagues to vote aye.

Thank you to the increasingly more talkative Joe Patterson. Seeing and hearing no further debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those in favor. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Ayes 55, noes zero. Measure passes. Moving on to file item 465, AB 3130 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3130 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva and others and accolading to local government.

Assembly Member Quirk Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and colleagues. I rise to present Assembly Bill 3130, which promotes transparency and accountability by mandating that Boards of Supervisors disclose specified relationships before distributing public funds to nonprofit organizations. Current law prohibits public officials from participating in decisions that will affect their personal finances.

These instances create a potential for biased decision making, favoring the officials personal financial concerns over the welfare of the public. By barring officials from prioritizing financial gain over the public good, conflict of interest laws help ensure fairness and accountability at all levels of government.

At its core, AB 3130 is a good government bill that upholds trust, integrity, and fairness in the distribution of public funds. AB 3130 has enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 55 Noes 0. Measure passes. Moving to file item 467, AB 1862 by Assembly Member Chen.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1862 by Assembly Member Chen and afterlane to limited liability partnerships.

Assembly Member Chen, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. And Members tune to lease the sunset dates on provisions authorizing licensed engineers, land surveyors, and architects to form LLP's, which currently expires on January 1, 2026. This Bill has faced no opposition and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, vote. We'll close the roll and tally the votes. Aye's 53, No's zero measure passes. We're going to pass temporarily on item 470.

Moving now to item 472 by AB 1814 by so may Member Ting.

The Clerk will read Assembly Bill 1814 by Senator Ting and after link to law enforcement, so may Member Ting.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. AB at 1840 prevents law enforcement from being able to arrest, search, or get a warrant when the sole basis for that action is a facial recognition match.

Right now, there are no statewide regulations around facial recognition, and there's nothing stopping law enforcement from implementing any principle or policy outside of the local jurisdictions, like mine in San Francisco, which have banned facial recognition technology. 2019, I authored a Bill which placed a temporary moratorium on facial recognition around body cameras, but that moratorium has since expired.

With so many large events coming forward, I think this is a smart first step around facial recognition technology and making sure that we are preventing false matches. With that respect for your osfhere, aye vote on AB 1814.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the door. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close and roll and tally the votes. Eyes 57 no zero measure passes. Movie to file item 473, AB 2590 by Assembly Member Reyes.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2590 by Assembly Reyes in accolade to Transportation

Assembly Member Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members. Today I present to you AB 25, a district bill which raises a procurement threshold for San Bernardino County Transportation Authority. CTA's procurement limits have not changed since the 1980s. Since then, they have been limited to 25,000 procurement authorizations.

This Bill raises the threshold to $100,000, which would align its procurement threshold with similar sized transportation commissions. AB 2590 ensures SBCTA can continue completing small projects efficiently while maintaining the best use of public funds. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 55 Noes 0. Measure passes. Moving to file item 474, AB 2946 by Assembly Member Valencia.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2946 by Assembly Member Valencia and others an accolade to local government.

Assembly Member Valencia, you are recognized once again. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today to present AB 2946 which is a district Bill. This would establish guidelines and criteria for appropriate discretionary funds by the County Board of Supervisors in Orange County.

This policy will ensure integrity and transparency of district discretionary funds in Orange County while reducing the potential for misuse of taxpayer dollars. I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the wall. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who who desire to vote. Clerk will close a roll and tally the votes. Aye's 59, No's zero, measure passes. Moving to file item 477.

AB 1836 by Assembly Member Bauer Kahan, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1836 Assembly Member Bauer Kahan accolade into intellectual property.

Assembly Member Bauer Kahan, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker and Members. I'm proud to present AB 1836 California is a hub for artists and artistic expression. Performers and celebrities build careers based on their signature performances.

Under current law, images and videos of deceased performers are allowed to be used without consent in a broad range of creative works, including an explicit exemption for audio visual works.

This may have made sense before the advent of artificial intelligence, where these individuals can be reanimated as if they were alive, it makes sense to give their families the same rights to defend them as if they were living now that their performances can appear to be just that.

AI replicas of performers would be protected and require consent by the estate under AB 1836, but one would be able to use it as long as they have the consent of the estate for the first 70 years after the person is deceased. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Mister Zbur, you are recognized.

Mister speaker, Members, I rise in support of AB, excuse me, 1836 and want to thank my colleague from Arinda for bringing this Bill. The 51st district is home to one of the largest concentrations of artists and workers in the entertainment industry.

This is the home of four of the major studios and of much of the recording industry. You know, this is a really important bill aimed at addressing the use of digital replication of deceased performers in audio visual works and sound recordings. And you know, when it comes to AI, all these bills are really super complicated.

When the bill was first introduced, there were a myriad of issues, and the author has worked very hard with both SAG AFTRA and with the MPA and the studios to narrow those issues. And as of this weekend, there was only one issue remaining, one related to some constitutional relaying language related to the First Amendment.

I went to the author this weekend, suggested some language that I think there's a path forward on resolving that one issue, but we just didn't have the time to work it out. The author has agreed to work with all the parties to try to resolve this as it moves to the second house.

And while the Motion Picture Association hasn't removed their opposition yet, I think we're all optimistic that we can resolve this remaining issue as it moves to the Senate. So with that, I'd like to thank the author once again and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, would you like to close?

Mister speaker, yes, I am committed to protecting the constitution and the First Amendment as I always am, but also protecting California's artists. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 51 Noes 0. Measure passes. Moving to file item 478.

AB 1886 by Selma Member Alvarez. Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1886 by Islam Alvarez and others, an accolade to land use.

Assembly Member Alvarez, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. Colleagues, I present Assembly Bill 1886, which clarifies that HCD determines whether the local jurisdiction's housing element is in compliance with housing elements law and that if a project is submitted during this period of noncompliance, that project is eligible for builders remedy regardless of whether the city reaches compliance before it is approved.

Until recently, the builder's remedy was largely unused, going decades with a few if any projects being submitted. However, in the last couple of years, we have seen some builder's remedy project applications come forward.

Despite the uptick in proposed projects due to the lack of clarity, many cities have used the argument that self certifying their housing element is sufficient for compliance purposes purposes. This has led to a multitude of applications not being processed by the local government or outright denied and various court cases that have slowed down housing development in areas.

At its core, AB 1886 is a good governance Bill that doesn't establish a new tool or new law, but it clarifies an existing one that the Legislature established decades ago. AB 1886 is written to provide certainty and clear up of ambiguity in the law.

AB 1886 will make it clear that the builder's remedy can and should be used as intended to build more housing in cities that are not doing their part by moving forward with their housing element. Thank you and I appreciate and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the door. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Aye's 45, No's one, measure passes.

Moving now to file item 479 AB 1889 by Assemblymember Friedman, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1889 by Assembly Member Friedman, an act relating to land use.

Assembly Member Friedman, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker and Members, I am proud to bring you AB 1889. So some of you may remember that last year I successfully passed a bill that has CalTrans looking at ways of adding wildlife connectors across their highways to help migrating animals staff of our highways preventing accidents and needless animal deaths.

This Bill is asking our local agencies that when they do their planning process, to similarly think about whether they have migrating animals to their communities and how better to plan for them. This bill does not add any new programs or any new enforcement. It is also not meant to stop ursymy development. In fact, quite the contrary.

Some of you may have had developers in your areas that bought a piece of land did their planning, only to be stopped during the sequel process when someone pointed out that they were interrupting wildlife corridors or habitats.

This will help developers know in advance where animals are migrating and how to account for them in their developments and hopefully will prevent the kind of issue that we see in a lot of my communities of bears having to be captured and drugged and airlifted out of neighborhoods.

Because when those neighborhoods were bought were planned 75 years ago, nobody thought about these inevitable conflicts with the animals. This bill is just common sense.

It will also allow for our municipalities to have the benefit of our state agencies like Fish and Wildlife to give them guidance and give them data so that they can plan better to make sure that when they build housing, they also figure out how to get those deer and those bears to where they need to go without interrupting our humans and leading to those inevitable and sometimes dangerous conflicts. With that, I would request and aye vote. Thank you.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 44 Noes 14. Measure passes. Moving now to file item 480.

AB 2015 by Assembly Member Schiavo presenting from the Majority leader's desk, the Clerk.

Will read Assembly Bill 2015 by Assemblymember Schiavo and atrial Lane to healing arts Member Shiavo.

You are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members, I rise today to present AB 2015, which is an important step that helps us address our nursing shortage today. Right now for nurse educators. If you're teaching at a school, you have to actually apply to the board of registered nurses directly.

Each school has to apply for that nurse to be able to be credentialed. So AB 2015 would improve the nurse faculty approval process by allowing nurses to apply directly to the BRN for approval, making credentials portable. AB 2015 also establishes a temporary approval process while a nursing program works to address any gaps in the faculty's qualifications.

These changes will help increase the RN training pipeline and will help us to train as quickly as possible the nurses that we need to care for patients in each of our communities. Respectfully ask for your I vote seeing.

And hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 49 nos. Eight measure passes. Moving to back and file order to item 455.

AB 3279, Committee on the Judiciary presented by Assembly Member Kalra. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3279 by the Committee on the Judiciary, an act relating to attorneys.

Assembly Member Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present AB 3279, the annual bill authorizing the licensing fee to be collected from California attorneys to fund the State Bar. The finances of the State Bar have been the topic of understandable scrutiny in recent years.

That being said, this bill would increase the fees paid by active attorneys by $65 per year to cover the State Bar's commitments to their employees and other obligations. This bill represents the Judiciary Committee's commitment to honor the hard working staff of the State Bar and protect them for potential layoffs.

It should be noted that the fee level proposed by this bill is half of what the State Bar requested and represents an amount justifiable by the State Bar's actual needs. That is also why the fee increase proposed by this bill comes with significant budget control language to limit the State Bar's discretion on how these funds can be spent.

One final note, seeking to avoid the need for future increases, there are proposals on the table to restructure the fee to be based on an attorney's type of work. Discussions surrounding restructuring the fear ongoing and we'll need buy in from our Senate colleagues before it can be adopted, hence why that proposal is not presently in this bill. This bill has no formal opposition. I request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Kalra. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desires desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 49, noes 13. Moving now to item 470.

AB 2537 by Assembly Member Bryan, the Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2531 by Assemblymember Bryan, actually law enforcement.

Assemblymember Brian, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and colleagues. A few years ago, Brian Diaz died of a fatal overdose while in Barry J Detention Center in Los Angeles. We know that because his family told us. We don't know that because we don't require juvenile facilities to keep records on in custody deaths.

Moreover, the in custody deaths in our prisons and in our local jails does not match the federal standard. What this bill does is it aligns us with federal standards and includes in custody death reporting for our young people who die while they are in custody if we ever have those kind of tragic situations.

This bill has had bipartisan support thus far and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you Mister Bryan. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 61 Noes 0. Measure passes.

Moving to file item 481, Assembly Bill 2023 by Assemblymember Quirk Silva.

The Clerk will read Assembly Bill 2023 by Assembly Quirk-Silva and after link to housing elements.

Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members. I rise to Present Assembly Bill 2023. This Bill creates parity in the housing element review process. The housing element must be timely and reflect the community's plan to address their share of the region's housing needs. Once the Department of Housing agrees, a local housing element complies with the law.

The housing element has a rebuttable presumption of validity. This means that the HCD's finding of compliance receives deference in court, and any party challenging the element has a high bar to meet to prove that HCD was incorrect.

However, there is no equivalent provision if a city or county does not meet the requirements set by HCD or does not take any action regarding its adopted housing element. While the majority of California jurisdictions do adopt housing elements that HCD Deems compliant, there are exceptions.

This oversight undermines the state's efforts to ensure that all jurisdictions adopt and enforce robust, legally compliant housing elements. I believe we all have a part in addressing the state's housing crisis. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 47 no seven measure passes moving to file item 485, AB 2297 by Assemblymember Friedman.

The Clerk will read Assembly Bill 2297 by Assembly Member Friedman and others, an accolade to healthcare.

Member Friedman, you are recognized.