Transcript Highlights:

• The Humboldt and Mendocino County Boards of Supervisors were still reviewing it this morning, but as
• We appreciate all the discussions and are reviewing all of the amendments at this time. Thank you.
• We appreciate all the discussions and are reviewing all of the amendments at this time. Thank you.
• , the last one I'll mention and then I'll answer any other questions, is there also needs to be a review
• And the data on the maps has been reviewed by thousands of people.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee heard AB 470 by Assembly Member McKinnor, a bill to modernize California’s carrier-of-last-resort rules for voice telephone service and create a process for carriers to transition away from obsolete copper networks in favor of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. The author and supporters said the bill is aimed at preserving reliable voice and 911 access while encouraging private investment in fiber and other modern networks, and emphasized that it is not a broadband bill. Support came from AT&T, business groups, and a former Cal OES director, who argued the bill provides a careful, phased modernization with CPUC oversight and increased public-safety investment requirements. Opposition came from TURN, CWA District 9, digital equity organizations, labor groups, and several local governments and county representatives. Critics raised concerns about the adequacy of the mapping process, reliance on broadband and wireless coverage data, the lack of on-the-ground verification, the challenge process, possible loss of Lifeline protections, and the impact on workers and union jobs. They also argued the bill could allow carriers to reduce universal-service obligations without enough safeguards for rural and vulnerable customers. Committee members discussed those concerns at length, especially the map-making process, the challenge procedure, and whether the bill sufficiently protects workers and customers who could be left behind. The author said the bill includes a 10-year backstop if service is lost, a CPUC-led process, and a three-to-one fiber buildout requirement tied to relinquishment, and expressed willingness to continue working with labor on workforce language. The committee ultimately passed AB 470 on a 7-0 due pass vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• All are well-intentioned ideas, but this is a complex issue needing an extensive and careful review that
• appraisals to four or five professional appraisal firms, and these firms do act as a de facto peer review
• Some of the unintended consequences of the review process for appraisal districts as it stands now—could
• The commission will conduct a comprehensive review of the Education Code.
• The commission will conduct a comprehensive review of the Education Code, specifically aimed at reducing

Bills: HB4 , HB20

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 heard a series of higher education and K-12 bills, initially without a quorum and with several measures left pending subject to the call of the chair. Early bills included HB 1868, which would direct a study on lowering the dual-credit funding threshold for public junior colleges from 15 to 9 semester credit hours; HB 2598, which would replace statutory references to “licensed specialist in school psychology” with “school psychologist”; HB 3629, which would bar registered sex offenders from serving on independent school district boards of trustees; and HB 4361, which would require the Higher Education Coordinating Board to adopt rules for timely emergency notifications at public institutions of higher education. Each received brief sponsor explanations, no opposition testimony, and was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4848, requiring public higher education systems to ensure at least one institution offers affordable competency-based bachelor’s degree programs in high-demand fields, and HB 1211, which would remove the age 25 deadline for former foster youth to use public college tuition waivers. HB 1211 drew extensive supportive testimony from Texas CASA, a former foster youth who benefited from the waiver, and a current student headed to medical school, all arguing the change would better match the realities faced by youth aging out of care. Members discussed the bill’s fiscal uncertainty and the argument that the waiver is an investment in workforce participation; the bill was left pending. Later, the committee heard HB 20, creating an Applied Sciences Pathway Program to let high school students earn certificates in targeted industries such as welding, plumbing, electrical work, manufacturing, and oil and gas while in school. Industry and workforce groups strongly supported the bill as a way to address labor shortages, while Texas 2036 raised concerns about allowing applied versions of core academic courses to substitute for traditional instruction. HB 4687, which would extend governmental immunity protections to certain campus/district charter schools and adult charter high schools, also received support from a charter-school attorney who said it would align statutes with existing case law and not expand charter rights. HB 4236, as substituted, would create a study group to examine the property value study’s effect on school finance and alternative valuation methods; it was adopted as a committee substitute and left pending. The committee also heard HB 824 on civics instruction in high school government courses and HB 2243, which would create a commission on teacher job satisfaction and retention; the latter prompted debate over removing “ethnic diversity” language from the commission’s makeup. After adopting the substitute for HB 2243 by roll call, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second was that at five years, you actually do a review of what you're doing.
• Actually, our planning board does a review every year of what they've done.
• They don't have a government review. So, could somebody get in trouble?
• </c><02:08:58.079><c> So,</c> don't have a government review. So, don't have a government review.
• </c><03:37:18.720><c> by</c> their warrant articles reviewed by their warrant articles reviewed by courts

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The subcommittee first took up House Bill 1598 and an amendment, 2026-0463H. Elliott Barry and Nick Norman testified that the amendment reflected a hard-fought compromise balancing concerns from all sides, and they urged no further changes. With no questions from members, the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend the bill with the amendment to the full committee, 3-0, and closed the subcommittee. The housing committee then moved through several executive session bills. HB 1010 was amended with 2026-0274H, described as clarifying and implementing prior housing law (HB 631) governing residential units above office and retail space; the amendment was adopted unanimously and the bill was reported ought to pass as amended on a 17-0 vote and placed on consent. HB 65 was then voted ought to pass and also placed on consent, with members saying it was duplicative of the compromise reached on HB 1010. HB 1349 was reconsidered for a clarifying vote and again received unanimous support for its prior disposition, 17-0, and was placed on consent. The committee next took up HB 1523, which concerned homeowners associations. An amendment, 2026-0380H, removed Section 5’s Attorney General enforcement mechanism, added HOA conflict-of-interest approval language, and delayed the effective date to give stakeholders more time; it was adopted unanimously. The bill then passed 18-0 as amended and was put on consent. The committee also voted ITL on CACR 16, a constitutional amendment related to sleeping or homelessness issues, after debate over unintended consequences and whether it protected a basic right; the vote was 10-8, with a majority report assigned and a minority report to be written. Later, HB 108, dealing with inclusionary zoning, was voted ITL 10-8 after members argued the bill imposed unrealistic burdens and could halt development; a minority report was noted with amendment 0149H. HB 7, concerning ADUs and restrictive covenants, was also voted ITL 10-8 after discussion of unintended consequences and a proposed amendment to encourage second ADUs; it was sent to the regular calendar with a minority report and amendment 0289H. HB 1120, on water-related subdivision requirements, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent, with one member noting a study amendment had been offered. HB 1143, addressing housing-provider obligations and municipal enforcement powers, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent. Finally, HB 1145, a fee/tax proposal tied to housing development, was ITL’d 11-7; members debated whether it would discourage development, and a minority report was assigned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. review that. Thank you, review that.
• </c><03:41:38.560><c> by</c> testimony, doesn't that get reviewed by testimony, doesn't that get reviewed
• There was a child support guidelines review issued back in '22. Um, it's a four-year review.
• </c> review it. review it.
• </c> do conduct three-year review do conduct three-year review modifications.<04:28:02.640><c> It's</

Committee: House Children and Family Law

Transcript Highlights:

• H. 907, an act relating to legislative review of reporting requirements.
• requirements. review of reporting requirements.
• </c> periodic reviews uh every 2 years. periodic reviews uh every 2 years.
• And so, they may not have the capacity to review adequately.
• So, the committee to review adequately.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> talks about the building uh code review talks about the building uh code review board<02:09:44.079
• Again, that would be left to the building code review board.
• </c> leave that to the building code review leave that to the building code review board.<02:12:53.920
• </c><02:13:30.880><c> So</c> the building code review board. So the building code review board.
• Omera to join me because I know unit is reviewing.

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• And each of those uh review<00:06:51.120><c> packages</c><00:06:51.759><c> were</c><00:06:52.000><c>
• >> No, I mean, it was just a review with them.
• It was u a not a uh a review with them.
• Nathan has reviewed it. He doesn't think it's intrusive of any work they would be hanging.
• I have to a draft for review of anou.

Committee: Joint Capitol Interpretive Exhibits and Wayfinding Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• And right now it's—we just turned it over to the AG's for their review, and hopefully we can get that
• </c><00:26:57.840><c> of</c><00:26:58.000><c> our</c> with cases but internal review of our with cases
• review and and hopefully<00:27:42.080><c> we</c><00:27:42.240><c> can</c><00:27:42.400><c> get</c><00
• </c> case where there's regular review case where there's regular review hearings,<00:54:49.760><c> there's
• But do we know if services for review.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:15:14.440><c> Uh</c> Review Committee to the commission.
• Uh Review Committee to the commission.
• Just for the committee's information, the trauma review board is a state board that exists.
• </c> when you're reviewing when you're reviewing as<01:16:38.680><c> you</c><01:16:38.800><c> go?
• This update will add a trauma medical review committee member to the commission, and they'll review and

Committee: House Transportation

Summary: House Transportation opened public hearings on three Senate bills and discussed a fourth scheduling issue. On SB 499, which would change Traffic Safety Commission reporting requirements, the sponsor’s representative said the bill would require annual aggregated data on the causes of traffic collisions in New Hampshire and recommendations to address them. Members asked about the added Trauma Medical Review Committee seat, and a representative explained that it is a longstanding state board of emergency and trauma professionals; the bill had already been amended and passed unanimously earlier in the process. On SB 500, concerning restroom access for certain commercial motor vehicle operators, the sponsor and trucking-industry supporters said the measure arose from concerns raised by female truck drivers and was intended to require larger commercial facilities with available public or employee restrooms to allow truck drivers to use them when there are no public safety concerns. Supporters from the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association said driver shortages make it important to recruit and retain women, and that lack of bathroom access is a significant barrier. Committee members asked about the scope of the problem and whether the issue affected male and female drivers differently. The committee then heard SB 559, which would reduce the minimum allowable speed limit on locally controlled roads. Supporters, including bicyclists and the Bike-Walk Alliance, testified that lower speeds improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, citing personal crash experiences and national guidance supporting lower urban speed limits where warranted by traffic or engineering studies. They emphasized the bill would not mandate lower limits statewide but would give towns local discretion. Members questioned whether the group would support 15 mph limits and how congestion and travel-time concerns were weighed. A Department of Transportation official testified neutrally, saying the agency had no formal position but had concerns about public perception and possible spillover to unnumbered state roads. The chair also noted an earlier scheduling problem that prevented immediate executive action on a bill until later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:08:41.440><c> And</c><00:08:41.519><c> I</c> the utilization review process.
• And I the utilization review process.
• And again, I'm I'm looking at review.
• We're not cutting back on any utilization review.
• But I will say that we have... jurisdiction that we reviewed in that jurisdiction that we reviewed in

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• </c> time review. time review.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:23:38.760><c> at</c> under go multiple independent reviews at under go multiple independent reviews
• </c><00:30:55.559><c> process</c> an essential part of the review process an essential part of the review
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> chance to review the minutes? chance to review the minutes?
• </c><00:15:34.639><c> the</c> had plenty of chances to review the had plenty of chances to review the
• </c> and then the the the current review and then the the the current review process<00:34:27.520><c>
• I heard my co-chair talk about the desire to have agencies review.
• I heard my co-chair talk about the desire to have agencies review.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for certainly giving us an opportunity to review the cleanup of AB 715.
• One is that we typically rely on the State Board of Education to review and approve all instructional
• One is that we typically rely on the State Board of Education to review and approve all instructional
• When I first had an opportunity to review it, I said, is this really possible?
• I look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with the most extensive discussion focused on AB 2189, AB 2615, AB 2496, AB 1750, and AB 1644. AB 2189 would create an $800,000 grant program through the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to support a statewide parent network for special education advocacy and training. Supporters said families need stronger coordination and information to navigate special education, while an opponent argued the bill could duplicate existing family-led organizations. The bill passed 6-0 and was sent to Appropriations, held on call for add-on votes. AB 2615, a cleanup bill to AB 715 on antisemitism and instructional materials, drew the most controversy. The authors said it was intended to clarify prior commitments by removing references to professional responsibility standards, refining the “factually accurate” language, and clarifying how discriminatory materials are handled. Supporters said it would help protect students from discrimination, while many educators, civil rights groups, and other organizations opposed it unless amended, warning that the factual-accuracy language could chill teaching and be applied too broadly. The committee chair and members raised concerns about implementation but ultimately supported moving the bill forward; it passed 5-0 and was held on call. AB 2496 would streamline school accountability reporting by making the California School Dashboard the primary transparency tool, phasing out the School Accountability Report Card over time, and making mid-year LCAP reporting optional. Supporters said this would reduce duplication and administrative burden while preserving access to key data; opponents worried families could lose the simplicity and accessibility of the current SARC and that the mid-year update still serves an important purpose. The bill was approved 3-0 and held on call. AB 1750, which would extend full salary for an additional five months for school employees who exhaust sick leave due to illness or injury, was supported as a dignity and retention measure but opposed by administrators over staffing and cost concerns; it passed 4-0 and was held on call. AB 1644 would require a bell-to-bell smartphone ban in TK-8 and recommend it for high school, with exceptions for instructional and safety needs; supporters said phones are harming attention and learning, while opponents argued districts had just adopted local policies and needed more flexibility. The transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why, earlier this year, the Speaker convened an outcomes review hearing that was facilitated by
• So we will need more time to fully review what is proposed for us.
• So not having had the chance to fully review the bill, it's been available for less than 24 hours.
• We are opposed unless amended to the bill, currently reviewing the committee analysis.
• So both your position is still reviewing and yours is opposed.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an internal review board. Currently, we have many of them.
• ...external review board. Now, where does that come from?
• So what, for example, like an internal review board or institutional review board does is it looks at
• that type of research, and they review that process.
• And I'm just learning about the external review board.

Committee: House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 267, which would change the membership rules for the Louisiana State Board of Home Inspectors by adjusting appointment qualifications, term limits, and nomination procedures. Vice Chair Thomas explained the bill was meant to address the lack of nominations from existing entities and to allow the governor more flexibility, especially in smaller districts. After adopting a technical amendment, the committee reported HB 267 favorably. The committee then considered House Bill 478 on utility overcharge reimbursements. The bill, as amended, requires utilities to clearly label reimbursements on customer bills and sets a deadline for issuing refunds. After discussion with the Public Service Commission and utility representatives, the committee changed the reimbursement timeline from 45 days to 90 days and clarified that the bill would not interfere with larger settlement or regulatory credits. HB 478 was then reported favorably as amended. The longest discussion centered on House Bill 924, a consumer protection measure aimed at contractors who solicit residential property owners after declared disasters. The author said the bill was intended to curb predatory storm-chasing and fraudulent insurance-related practices, while still allowing emergency mitigation work. The committee adopted technical amendments and then a conceptual amendment shortening the catastrophe response period from six months to 30 days. Testimony was split: the Insurance Commissioner and some roofing industry witnesses supported the bill as a way to deter fraud, while other contractors argued it would hurt small businesses, limit legitimate door-to-door work, and not solve enforcement problems. The bill remained under consideration after extensive testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an Institutional Review Board. Currently, we have many of them.
• So what, for example, like an internal review board or institutional review board does is it looks at
• that type of research, and they review that process.
• are those external review boards that could help us expedite this process.
• And I’m just learning about the external review board.

Bills: HB267 , HB478 , HB617 , HB659 , HB800 , HB922 , HB924 , HB947 , HB1166 , HB1223

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Keywords: home inspectors, board membership, licensing, term limits, Louisiana State Board, utility, reimbursement, overcharges, consumer protection, economic relief, hidden fees, junk fees, drip pricing, price transparency, mandatory fees, surcharges, unfair trade practices, advertising disclosures, total price, service fees

Transcript Highlights:

• . review. review.
• </c><00:35:18.880><c> plans</c><00:35:19.520><c> and</c> experts in reviewing plans and experts in reviewing
• Um, Um, Um, so,<00:35:38.440><c> these</c><00:35:38.840><c> plan</c><00:35:39.160><c> review</c><00:35
• have been so, these plan review services have been offered<00:35:40.440><c> in</c><00:35:40.520><c>
• to be reviewing in these buildings. buildings. buildings.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill represents a pragmatic, common-sense approach to improving the housing element review process
• And the second part is ensuring that we get clarity and certainty in the housing element review process
• This exaction was never disclosed to HCD during the housing element review.
• I appreciate the author for bringing the bill, as well as the committee for reviewing it.
• Appreciate the author for bringing the bill and as well as the committee for reviewing it.

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the discovery phase, that is when case examiners review the evidence that is submitted, and
• Only comment is to say that several years ago our office reviewed the administrative data behind several
• However, we are highly concerned about the lack of oversight and accountability and independent review
• Crop has provided me with housing of the skill that I need to review.
• Crop has provided me with housing of the skill that I need to review. Our budget ask.