Transcript Highlights:

• It's to provide for contempt of the legislature.
• And while this is a disrespect to the legislature, I can understand that.
• Tell me, how would the legislature ensure, Tell me, how would the legislature ensure that this power
• of the Legislature.
• Why can't we just leave the 60-day limit upon the Legislature meeting?

Committee: House House and Governmental Affairs

Summary: The committee took up several House bills dealing mainly with ethics, elections, and legislative procedure. HB 858 by Rep. Riser, creating a public records exception for GPS data on wildlife and aquatic life held by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, was reported favorably without objection. HB 661, which expands existing nepotism exceptions to allow school board members and superintendents to hire immediate family members as paraprofessionals and janitors, drew support from members concerned about staffing shortages in schools; the Ethics Administrator noted the board’s concern that repeated exceptions erode the nepotism rules, but the bill was still reported favorably without objection. HB 359, a cleanup bill on the death of a non-major-party primary candidate, was also reported favorably without objection. HB 258, which clarifies that volunteer firefighters are not subject to dual office-holding restrictions and allows retired judges to serve on certain boards while still being available for ad hoc judicial service, passed on an 8-4 roll call vote. Rep. Newell’s HB 705, which would strengthen contempt of the legislature penalties and add provisions addressing disorderly conduct and interference with legislative proceedings, generated the most debate. Members raised concerns about the proposed jump in fines from $1,000 to $50,000, due process, and the breadth of language that could be read to cover ordinary advocacy or passionate testimony. After discussion, the author agreed the bill needed more work, and it was voluntarily deferred in committee. The committee also heard HB 177, allowing retired court reporters to return on a contractual basis to address shortages, which was amended and then reported favorably without objection. HB 238, which would remove a waiting period and population-based restriction for former school board members or certified psychologists to return to work in school districts, prompted a lengthy debate about the judiciary and per diem rules because of related ethics concerns raised in the discussion; the author ultimately asked to voluntarily defer the bill, and the committee agreed. Finally, HB 398, which would cap lodging, meal, and incidental expense reimbursements for state officials and employees at GSA rates and limit emergency exceptions, drew sharp opposition from several members and a retired judge who argued the current judicial per diem is reasonable and tied to safety and travel needs. The author said he would work on amendments and voluntarily deferred HB 398. The committee then began discussion of HB 752, which would move the timing of regular legislative sessions into joint rule and change the session start/end dates, with the author explaining it was intended to give the Legislature more flexibility without needing constitutional amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's been a few years, as the chair noted, since the Legislature passed SB 158.
• Does the Legislature need to provide more direction on how to achieve the goal?
• Do you have any suggestions on steps the Legislature can take to help DTSC's programs?
• In the meantime, I also think the Legislature continues to have a key role to play.
• The Legislature still has a role to play.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products program. Senators and Assembly members emphasized protecting overburdened communities and asked how DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety are using their authority to improve accountability, reduce delays, and address hazardous waste facilities and consumer product chemicals. The hearing also included discussion of extended producer responsibility programs and whether DTSC can support them more efficiently, including through coordination with CalRecycle. DTSC Director Katie Butler said the department is now more transparent, accountable, and fiscally stable, citing stronger enforcement actions, an interactive inspections map, expanded community outreach, and emergency response work on the Los Angeles wildfire cleanup. She said DTSC has made progress on fee reform, the hazardous waste management plan, cleanup grants, permit renewals, and safer consumer products rulemaking, including adding microplastics to the candidate chemical list. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw said the board has held multiple public meetings and hearings, is working on fee rates and performance metrics, and is revising the hazardous waste management plan after public comment, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. He also noted remaining concerns about fee structure, permit delays, and the pace of the safer consumer products program. Public witnesses offered sharply different views. A representative of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance said SB 158 reforms have improved permitting and transparency, but urged more attention to risk-based decision-making, reduced duplication, and possible General Fund support for plan implementation rather than relying only on fees. Earthjustice argued DTSC remains too slow and that communities continue to suffer from long-delayed permits and weak protections, urging the Legislature to take a more active role and to prioritize eliminating hazardous substances rather than minimizing costs. Committee members pressed the witnesses on permit renewals, community impacts, and the pace of the safer consumer products program, while DTSC defended its progress and said further legislative collaboration may be needed on hazardous waste management and emerging waste streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is incumbent upon the Legislature to address these shortcomings.
• I haven't heard anybody in the Legislature not talk about enforcement in the illicit market.
• And again, would like to work with the Legislature on solutions on the policy side as well.
• And in any situation, you can have the legislature figure this out.
• I expect that this can be worked out without the legislature having to intervene.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products attractive to children are being kept out of the legal market. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague or subjective, leading to inconsistent enforcement, and that the state relies heavily on licensees to self-police because there is no upfront review before products reach the market. The audit cited examples involving cartoon-like images, bright colors, flavor references, candy-like imagery, strain names, and beverage packaging, and recommended clearer statutory standards, possible pre-approval of packaging, better enforcement tools, and stronger tracking of repeat violators. Assemblymembers and senators largely agreed that child safety is the priority, but differed on the best policy response. Some members argued for clearer legislative limits and even plain packaging, saying products like root beer, cherry pie, and cereal-like designs are plainly appealing to children. Department officials said they had already begun reforms, including a centralized label-review team, a rubric, improved databases, and more attention to repeat violations, while also emphasizing that the illicit and intoxicating hemp markets are major sources of youth exposure and that resource constraints limit inspections. They said they are open to working with the Legislature on more specific standards and additional funding. Public witnesses split between public health and industry perspectives. A pediatrician and public health advocate urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, limits on flavors and potency, and a pre-market review system, arguing that vague rules have failed children. Industry representatives said they support youth protections but want bright-line, objective standards so compliant businesses can know what is allowed; they argued that most youth-targeted packaging is in the illicit market and that the legal market needs clearer rules rather than broader bans. No formal vote or committee action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's just Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home
• There's just Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home
• Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home do not support
• You'll make them go through an initiative to the legislature next year rather than...
• There's not support in the legislature for enacting an income tax on low-income people.

Summary: House and Senate Democratic leaders announced and defended a new “Millionaire’s Tax” bill, saying it is intended to raise revenue from the highest earners while reducing reliance on sales tax and B&O tax and funding education, health care, community safety, and other state needs. They said the proposal is a starting point and will likely change as they continue talks with the governor, business groups, local governments, and other stakeholders. They also said the bill is not subject to cutoff because it affects state revenue, and that the Senate hearing is scheduled first in Ways and Means, with the House expected to follow after the Senate version moves over. The leaders described the bill as narrowly targeted at roughly 30,000 individual payers, with the first $1 million of income taxed at zero and the rate matching the state capital gains tax above that level. They argued the measure is not a broad income tax and rejected claims that it creates a marriage penalty, saying the structure mirrors the capital gains tax and uses Washington’s capital gains definitions. They also said the bill includes credits and deductions to address pass-through businesses, including dollar-for-dollar credits for B&O and public utilities taxes and an election allowing some businesses to pay the tax at the entity level. A major part of the discussion focused on how the bill would use revenue. Leaders said about 5% would go to counties for public defense costs tied to a new Supreme Court mandate, while the rest would support tax relief and new spending. They said the package would expand the Working Families Tax Credit, increase the small business credit, end the B&O surcharge a year early, and exempt some hygiene and grooming products from sales tax, with the tax-relief share estimated in the 20% range. They also said the necessity clause is needed because of structural budget problems and federal policy changes, and they expressed confidence that voters and lawmakers have become more open to taxing high earners, citing the capital gains tax vote and broader public concern about inequality and federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's where this committee and the legislature comes in.
• That middle column, the 2025 law, that was the budget that the legislature set when we left town last
• I'm making the assumption that, you know, if the legislature were to follow the governor's plan and
• But the question for this committee and for the legislature as a whole is: what is your comfort level
• So, I mean, that's your predecessors in the Idaho Legislature have taken budget very seriously.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• We look forward to collaborating with you as the Legislature throughout this process.
• The Governor asked the Legislature to act in a period of two weeks to reauthorize Diablo Canyon.
• We recommend that the Legislature reject this proposal.
• So we think the Legislature faces some really key decisions very soon.
• So that's an issue that may come before this Legislature in the relatively near future.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on transportation agency budget proposals and did not take any votes. The first major discussion focused on the Motor Vehicle Account shortfall and a proposed one-time $166 million transfer from the Air Pollution Control Fund and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to offset California Air Resources Board mobile source costs. Department of Finance and the LAO described the account’s long-running structural deficit, driven largely by employee compensation growth and REAL ID-related workload, while members criticized the use of Proposition 4, GGRF, and other one-time or redirected funds as backfills and urged a longer-term solution that addresses both revenues and expenditures. The committee then heard Caltrans’ request for $25 million in General Fund support to create a Clean California Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway Grant Program. Caltrans said the program would build on the prior Clean California effort by funding local litter and graffiti cleanup, community engagement, and workforce pathways for vulnerable populations. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that local litter abatement is not a core state responsibility and that one-time funding is unlikely to solve persistent local cleanup needs. Several members echoed those concerns, while public commenters split between support for the cleanup/employment model and calls to instead restore funding to the Active Transportation Program and transit operations. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency requested that California administratively recognize Tahoe’s federally designated population figure for state formula-based transportation funding, which would raise the population count used in formulas from 40,000 to 145,000. The agency said the change would not request new money but would better align state formulas with federal law and support a shared regional funding framework; members appeared generally supportive, though they noted the need to phase in the change to reduce impacts on other regions. The final presentation was on High-Speed Rail. The LAO reviewed the authority’s project update report, noting that it did not fully meet statutory requirements and that key details are still pending in a supplemental report expected later in the summer. The LAO said the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment still shows an estimated roughly $7 billion funding gap, with no specific plan to close it, and highlighted risks from federal review, inflation, and uncertain GGRF revenues. High-Speed Rail Authority staff said they are conducting a bottom-up review of scope, schedule, ridership, and costs, expect to provide updated information by late summer, and are exploring public-private partnerships and other financing strategies. Members stressed that no further funding commitments should be made until the updated analysis is available.

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge the Legislature to continue to strengthen assistance for families and children facing hunger
• I'm here to thank the Governor and Legislature for the continued commitment to California students in
• Any other members of the legislature here? Okay, seeing none, we'll continue with the public.
• We ask the Legislature to raise the revenues needed to meet urgent needs now.
• We request that the Legislature approve that project.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides more flexibility to the Legislature to have your input on it.
• The Legislature and the administration can always exceed that and put more in.
• So not all of the increase in spending is a result of new policy choices by the Legislature.
• How should the Legislature think about prioritizing investments in Medi-Cal programs?
• How should the Legislature think about prioritizing investments in Medi-Cal programs?

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget and presentations from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Chair Laird described the proposal as roughly balanced with $23 billion in reserves, while Vice Chair Niello argued the revenue estimates were overly optimistic and warned of a structural deficit, calling for a deeper review of programs and concern over the state’s $20 billion unemployment insurance debt. Finance said the budget is balanced in the budget year but still leaves a roughly $2.9 billion deficit, with out-year gaps above $20 billion, and characterized the plan as largely a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. The LAO said its office sees substantial downside risk to the revenue forecast, emphasized the volatility of stock-market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to begin addressing the structural deficit now rather than waiting until May. Members focused on the implications of federal policy changes, Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and the MCO tax, as well as the state’s reserve strategy. Senators Menjivar and Richardson raised concerns about health coverage reductions, county costs, hospital finances, and the lack of a broader revenue solution, while Finance said the state cannot fully backfill federal cuts and is still assessing the impacts. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal to suspend the rainy day fund deposit and setting aside the proposed Proposition 98 settle-up rather than using it for spending. Finance defended both proposals as necessary to balance the budget year and said it plans to begin discussions with legislative leaders before the May Revision. The committee also discussed climate and transportation funding, including cap-and-trade/GGRF allocations for Cal Fire, interest earnings from the fund, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and AB 617 air quality investments. Senator Reyes questioned the focus on light-duty ZEV incentives instead of heavy-duty vehicles, and Finance said the proposal is intended to partially replace the federal consumer tax credit and that some heavy-duty funding remains from prior years. Senator Richardson also raised concerns about Olympics-related infrastructure, courthouse repairs, and displaced workers, while other members stressed homelessness funding and the need for more immediate action on out-year budget problems. No formal votes or actions were taken during the portion provided; the hearing was informational and moved into member questions after the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So first, the legislature requires a recurring review.
• The legislature set four objectives for these preferences.
• So the legislature directed us to look at four pollutants. ...reduction objective.
• And the legislature enacted this preference in 2016.
• The legislature should continue the tax preference.

Summary: House Finance met in work session on January 13, 2026, beginning with the introduction of new member Rep. Janice Zahn and a reminder about short-session amendment deadlines. The committee then heard JLARC’s 2025 tax preference performance reviews, covering nine preferences. JLARC recommended continuing several preferences, including natural gas transportation fuel exemptions, reduced B&O rates for travel agents and tour operators, a property tax exemption for nonprofit low-income housing developers, a property tax exemption for multipurpose senior centers, a sales and use tax remittance for disabled veteran adapted housing, a trade convention attendance nexus exemption, a B&O exemption for agricultural fertilizer and seed sales, and a hazardous substance tax exemption for certain pesticides. JLARC also recommended allowing unused silicon smelter-related preferences to expire. Members asked about legislative intent, data limitations, and how performance metrics should be tied more clearly to policy objectives; committee leaders and JLARC staff discussed a new standardized rubric for future tax preference performance statements and fiscal note review. The committee also noted that bills related to some of the reviewed preferences were already introduced. For the low-income housing exemption, JLARC said nonprofit developers were building homes as intended but that the current spending-based metric did not fully reflect the policy goal, and it recommended the legislature decide whether to continue or modify the preference. For multipurpose senior centers, JLARC said the exemption met its inferred objective and recommended continuation, with possible consideration of making it permanent. For the disabled veteran adapted housing remittance, JLARC said few eligible veterans were claiming the benefit and recommended continuation with changes to improve access and consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the trade convention attendance exemption, JLARC said use was unknown but the preference likely helped keep Washington competitive with other states and recommended continuation, though members questioned the lack of direct evidence and the administrative-burden rationale. The committee then received an update from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council. The forecast showed the U.S. economy slowing but still growing, with Washington expected to have modest growth, weak employment gains, continued personal income growth, and slow construction. ERFC said tariffs and trade policy remained the biggest risks, inflation was expected to stay elevated in the near term, and the Federal Reserve had cut rates three times in 2025 with two more cuts projected in 2026. State revenues were up $105 million in the current biennium compared with the November forecast, but down $185 million in the next biennium, with growth driven in part by recent legislative changes and improved estate tax collections. Members asked about sector-specific employment trends, the impact of high-income households on retail sales, and how state revenues compare with personal income over time. The meeting adjourned after the forecast presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature would set the uniform procedure for those provisions.
• But, you know, we come together as a legislature.
• This legislature clearly needs to get the priorities straight.
• And today the legislature will be doing that.
• The Florida legislature does not. The Florida legislature does not have that.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:21:14.720><c> School</c> for that through the legislature.
• School for that through the legislature.
• Therefore, there is no fiscal cost right now for the legislature to cover.
• </c> data and provide it to the legislature. data and provide it to the legislature.
• </c> report it to the to the legislature. report it to the to the legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the amendment it says if the legislature the amendment it says if the legislature does<00:10:01.240
• </c> amount of time for then the legislature amount of time for then the legislature which<00:15:25.680
• Current law has the check of the legislature.
• Current law has the check of the legislature.
• Current law has the check of the legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Representatives of the 33rd legislature Representatives of the 33rd legislature of<01:18:24.320>
• legislature legislature seat<01:22:20.080><c> I</c><01:22:20.159><c> think</c><01:22:20.360><c> you<
• </c> Representatives of the 33rd legislature Representatives of the 33rd legislature be<01:22:45.199>
• </c> Representatives of the 33rd legislature Representatives of the 33rd legislature of<01:22:48.199>
• </c> Representatives of the 33rd legislature Representatives of the 33rd legislature of<01:32:40.760>

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no specific commitments to addressing those changes that the legislature is seeking?
• I thank the legislature and the governor for restoring cuts to Prop 56 supplemental payments.
• And so we urge the legislature to return that to the regular policy process. Thank you. Solutions.
• We're very appreciative of the improvements made by the legislature in this budget.
• We thank the legislature for rejecting the proposed initial cuts to the CSU.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to take a moment to thank what happened last year, thank the Governor and the Legislature for
• . ...all of their proposed statutory changes are implemented basically immediately by the Legislature
• So it's not clear whether the Legislature will approve some or all or none of those, and so... ...the
• Legislature will approve some or all or none of those.
• You alluded to what the Legislature originally approved.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its draft 2026 business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority reported continued Central Valley construction progress, including completion of 59 of 92 major structures, 80 of 119 miles of guideway under construction, 93% utility relocation completion, and plans to begin track laying and electrification soon. It said the revised goal remains completing the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment by 2032-33, while also pursuing ancillary revenue opportunities, a private partner through a co-development procurement, and two budget change proposals to reappropriate $423 million for Link Union Station and $246 million in federal trust funds before they expire. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the budget change proposals but raised major concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s broader fiscal outlook. LAO said the plan appears incomplete in several respects, that funding is likely insufficient to complete the revised initial operating segment and would leave a larger gap for expansion beyond the Central Valley, and that borrowing costs, optimistic assumptions, and uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues could worsen the outlook. LAO suggested the Legislature could wait for a finalized business plan and highlighted unresolved questions about the scope of the project, borrowing, public-private partnerships, and proposed statutory changes. Members focused on whether the project can be delivered on time and what financial obligations the state could face. Senators questioned the need for tax increment financing, value capture, and other legislative changes, with concerns about impacts on local governments and school districts. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority and that value capture is a longer-term tool that would not affect civil construction of Merced-to-Bakersfield, but could affect payback timing. It also said the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding through 2045 is currently assumed to cover the Central Valley segment, while private partners could either finance against that state commitment or invest additional capital in other segments. Public testimony was mixed: building trades and labor groups supported the project and the Authority’s request, while local government and special district representatives opposed tax increment proposals and urged consent from affected agencies; environmental and rail advocates supported the project and urged action on utility relocation. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a directive from the legislature, or is it within the authority's purview?
• The legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• The legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• And I certainly appreciate the recognition that the Legislature creates the law, that the Legislature
• Is the Legislature made that role clear? Is that sufficient?

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments and procedural items, including appointments to the Civil Rights Council, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, UC College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors, bill referrals, and floor acknowledgments. Most of these items passed unanimously, while the Civil Rights Council appointment of Indira Cameron Banks passed 3-2. The bulk of the meeting focused on confirmations to the California Air Resources Board. Supervisor Linda Hopkins and Mayor Patricia Locke Dawson, both nominated to CARB, described their backgrounds and emphasized balancing climate and air-quality goals with economic impacts, community engagement, and practical implementation. Senators raised concerns about cap-and-trade costs, leakage, warehouse and truck traffic impacts, agricultural burdens, emergency vehicle and fleet electrification challenges, natural gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis. Both nominees said they favored open-door engagement, listening to affected communities, and using data and technology-neutral approaches. Public commenters largely supported both nominees, and the committee voted to advance Hopkins 4-0 and Locke Dawson 5-0 to the full Senate. The committee also heard the appointment of Andrew Rakestraw as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety. Rakestraw, who previously worked in U.S. climate and legal roles, said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and community responsiveness at DTSC. Senators questioned him about DTSC reform, community engagement in places like the Hinkley/Herupah Valley and Exide cleanup areas, fee-setting and fiscal stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and coordination with the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. He said the board should go beyond brief public comment periods, engage communities directly, and ensure community concerns are reflected in outcomes. Supporters from environmental justice and waste-management groups testified in favor, no opposition was offered, and the committee moved his nomination forward to the Senate floor, with one member abstaining.

Transcript Highlights:

• To start off, the SBCC is a state agency created in 1974 by the Legislature.
• and then the rulemaking authority that's granted by the legislature with this body.
• “I think for some of the legislature, legislative direction on this, the message is two-fold.
• We're really reactive to both the legislature and the intent of the legislature, and then what the public—I
• Is there something that we as a legislature could do?

Summary: The committee heard first from Ferndale city officials and a representative of FutureWise on annexation planning. Ferndale described its “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to tie urban growth area planning, capital facilities, and eventual annexation together earlier in the process. Speakers argued that counties often allow incremental development in urban growth areas without city-level standards, impact fees, or coordinated infrastructure planning, which can leave cities and taxpayers with higher future costs and make annexation less likely. Members raised questions about fire districts, county revenue loss, and whether annexation incentives or interlocal revenue-sharing agreements could help. FutureWise supported requiring annexation phasing in countywide planning policies, using pre-annexation agreements, and applying city standards in urban growth areas to make annexation more predictable and less contentious. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council (SBCC). Staff explained the council’s composition, standing committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They described the ongoing 2024 code cycle and the separate work underway on Senate Bill 5491 and related legislation concerning single-stair residential buildings and multiplex housing. Members discussed how the legislature can better direct the SBCC, the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, and the importance of involving technical experts early. The SBCC also addressed concerns about the wildfire urban interface code, noting that problems arose when code language and maps were developed on different timelines and applied to urban areas in ways that were not anticipated. Several members asked about regional differences, especially energy code impacts in eastern Washington and the role of natural gas. SBCC representatives said the council can use climate zones and appendices for some regional variation, but statewide statutory targets still constrain the energy code. They emphasized that the council is largely reactive to legislative direction and public proposals, and that clearer legislative intent would help avoid ambiguity in future code development. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, what can the state Legislature do to increase trust and safety?
• In the Legislature, what can the Legislature do to increase trust and safety?
• Lastly, I will just state really briefly: what can the Legislature do?
• And in addition, we continue to ask the Legislature to fund legislation...
• You have certainly led the way in terms of a moral voice in our Legislature.

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to hear opening remarks, state data, and testimony from community organizations and equity commissions about rising hate and discrimination in California. The chair framed the hearing as a response to persistent targeting of protected classes, and members said the committee’s purpose was to elevate community voices and identify policy responses. Assembly Member Gonzalez and Assembly Member Lowenthal also briefly commented on the importance of listening to communities and developing legislative solutions. The California Department of Justice reported that 2024 hate crime events, offenses, and victims all increased from the prior year, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias in different breakdowns. DOJ also noted increases in referrals for prosecution and described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid-response protocol, and outreach efforts. The California Commission on the State of Hate said hate is underreported, cited survey data suggesting millions of Californians experienced hate incidents, and recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law-enforcement training, and sustained funding for victim support and prevention programs. Commissioners also emphasized that public messaging by leaders can influence hate and violence. A long panel of advocates described the impacts of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ+ hate, and anti-immigrant enforcement on their communities. NAACP representatives focused on systemic racism in policing, education, health, housing, and environmental justice; LULAC and CHIRLA described ICE raids, profiling, and fear in Latino and immigrant communities; Jewish, Muslim, Asian American, and LGBTQ+ speakers highlighted rising threats, harassment, and the need for language access, school protections, security funding, and legal assistance. The Racial Equity Commission closed by describing its statewide framework work, community engagement, and a December 1 deadline for delivering recommendations to the Legislature and administration. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members said they would request additional recommendations and continue the work through future hearings and briefings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will Owens, Analyst with the Legislature. State Bailiff's Office.
• This request aims to essentially cut out the legislature.
• By no means are we trying to cut out the legislature.
• This was something that the legislature championed, and we are really appreciative of.
• So just real quick, in 1980, the California Legislature established the EMS Act.

Transcript Highlights:

• You, as the Legislature, are probably going to be under pressure to do something about that.
• It very much depends on what the Legislature would like to protect.
• The legislature has a good amount of flexibility to define what infrastructure spending is.
• There is a bill that was introduced on the other side of the Legislature and the Assembly.
• It can be used anywhere the Legislature wants to put those dollars.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with opening remarks focused on the state’s long history of revenue volatility and the role reserves play in smoothing downturns. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that California’s personal income tax base is highly volatile because high-income earners’ income is tied to capital gains and other fluctuating sources, and that Proposition 2’s current reserve rules set aside 1.5% of General Fund revenues plus a share of excess capital gains, but cap constitutional deposits at 10% of General Fund taxes. The LAO said its analysis evaluates reserve policy over decades and found the current system would cover about 30% of funding shortfalls in a 90th-percentile downturn scenario over 50 years, which is an improvement over no reserve but still inadequate. The LAO recommended raising the reserve cap substantially, ultimately to 50% by 2055, with an immediate increase to 20% and gradual increases thereafter. It also suggested either replacing Proposition 2’s deposit formulas with broader rules that capture volatility across all tax revenues or, alternatively, depositing all excess capital gains rather than only a share. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s prior proposal similarly sought to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exclude reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit, arguing those two constraints limited the state’s ability to save during recent revenue surges. Other panelists and members discussed whether reserves should be paired with broader structural changes, including unemployment insurance reform, safety-net funding, infrastructure reserves, and the projected surplus temporary holding account. The California Budget and Policy Center supported reserve reform but emphasized balancing savings with current needs and noted other tools such as revenue increases, borrowing from special funds, and the new surplus-holding account. Members debated the causes and effects of Proposition 13, the appropriations limit, business departures, and whether reserve policy should be more directly tied to protecting Californians’ access to health care, food assistance, child care, and other core services. No votes or formal actions were taken, as the hearing was informational only.