10A
Date: November 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
By: Eirenne O'Neill, Staff Assistant | [email protected] Subject: City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee – Accept and File Meeting Minutes and State Legislative Advocacy Update. Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee that City Council:
1. Accept and file the October 22, 2025, City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee meeting minutes; and
2. Accept and file the State Legislative Advocacy update.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
Session Overview
The 2025 legislative session of the California State Legislature was notably vigorous. By the February introduction deadline, legislators submitted approximately 2,350 bills, representing one of the highest volumes in recent years. While estimates vary slightly, legislative activity remained elevated relative to past years. Compounding the workload, the Legislature extended its adjournment to September 30, 2025, reflecting an intense final week of last-minute amendments and negotiations.
A substantial number of those measures, over 1,200, were forwarded to the desk of Governor Newsom for his consideration. Under Article IV, Section 10(b)(1) of the California Constitution, the Governor had until October 13, 2025, to sign, veto or allow each bill to become law without signature. The result: approximately 1,124 bills were signed into law, while around 123 were vetoed, roughly 10% of those submitted to the Governor for action. The approximately 10% veto rate (123 of 1,247) signals that while most bills cleared both houses and reached the Governor, a modest but meaningful proportion were rejected, suggesting the Governor selectively exercised his veto power in line with strategic or policy priorities.
City Engagement and Outcomes
The City of Torrance monitored more than 35 bills deemed likely to impact the planning, government operations, transportation, and other systems relevant to the City. 1 City Council
November 18, 2025
From that monitoring, the City issued official position letters on 20 bills in total:
7 letters of support (~35%)
13 letters of opposition (~65%)
Bill Outcomes
Among the 7 bills supported by the City: only 1 was passed; the remaining 6 were either vetoed or died in committee.
Among the 13 bills opposed by the City: 8 were passed, while 5 died in committee.
Representative Alignment
Staff evaluated whether regional state-level representatives voted in alignment with the City’s official positions. Al Muratsuchi (Assembly) had an alignment rate of approximately 45% while Ben Allen (Senate) had an alignment rate of approximately 35%. The “Alignment Rate” is defined as the number of times the representative’s vote aligned with the City’s position letters divided by the total number of letters issued (20).
The relatively low success rate for City-supported bills (1 of 7) highlights the challenge of influencing statewide legislation in line with local priorities. It also underscores the difficulty of affecting passage even when the City takes a proactive supportive position. The fact that 8 of 13 opposed bills nonetheless passed suggests a divergence between the City’s positions and the broader legislative or political momentum. It may reflect that the bills the City opposed were aligned with larger state-level agendas or coalition efforts that dominated the legislature. The alignment rates of state representatives at 45% and 35% respectively reveal that less than half the time their votes matched City officially expressed positions. This signals a potential need for deeper engagement, clearer advocacy on City priorities, and more strategic targeting of alignment efforts.
Key Policy Area Activity
The City of Torrance has been monitoring and evaluating key legislation during the 2025 session—particularly in areas of housing, energy, homelessness, taxation, emergency preparedness, and economic development. Presented below is a summary of those measures, the City’s position on each, and their final outcomes.
Housing and Land Use: The City monitored several housing-related bills aimed at increasing production, infill development and affordability, including AB 736 (Wicks) and SB 650 (Papan). In addition, the City took a strong opposition to SB 79 (Weiner), sending a position letter to the author as well as to the governor in a final attempt to halt the bill before its signing. Despite the City’s various attempts, SB 79 was passed on October 10, 2025.
Energy and Environmental Policy: In this area, bills such as AB 303 (Addis) reflected growing emphasis on aligning renewable energy standards and environmental review, though the bill did not advance. Broader legislative efforts focused on reducing utility costs and extending the State’s Cap-and-Trade program.
Community Services and Homelessness: The City supported SB 569 (Blakespear), which underscored the Legislature’s continuing emphasis on homelessness prevention and service coordination. However, the bill did not pass.
2 City Council
November 18, 2025
Emergency Preparedness: A local priority was AB 986 (Muratsuchi), co-authored by the City’s Assemblymember, which addressed regional leadership in public safety and disaster readiness.
The Governor vetoed the bill despite the City’s advocacy.
Revenue and Economic Development: The City supported bills such as SB 346 (Durazo) and SB 828 (Cabaldon), which focused on fiscal stability and redevelopment of surplus land; both bills passed into law.
Local Government, Regulation and Labor Matters: The City submitted letters on legislation impacting local control, permitting, and public-safety policy. Across all tracked bills, approximately 65% of the City’s letters expressed opposition and 35 % expressed support, demonstrating a consistent advocacy posture emphasizing local regulatory authority and fiscal responsibility.
Statewide Special Election
The recent statewide special election will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, which will remain in effect until 2030, following California voter approval of Proposition 50. The measure directs the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to resume its role in redrawing congressional district boundaries in 2031. Proposition 50 was the sole item on the ballot for the November 4th special election, and its outcome will determine how Californians are represented in the U.S. House of Representatives.
State Legislative Advocacy Committee Discussion
Staff presented the final status of previously monitored bills and identified those for which letters of support or opposition had been submitted, including insight into bills related to specific planning efforts. Jason Gonsalves from Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons participated virtually and provided an analysis of the 2025 State Legislative Session, as well as an outlook for the 2026 Legislative Session.
Chair Chen inquired about several legislative matters:
Regarding AB 253, Chair Chen asked how the bill differs from existing legislation. Building Official Keo Uykheang explained that the new bill would impose a time restriction on construction timelines consistent with current plan check timelines. He added that the bill would also allow outside, certified architects to sign off on construction projects if the 30- day review timeline is not met.
Chair Chen asked whether AB 671 was introduced early in the session or in response to the January 2025 wildfires. Building Official Uykheang clarified that AB 253, not AB 671, was developed as a response to the January 2025 Pacific Palisades wildfires to expedite housing development for affected residents.
Chair Chen asked whether the Torrance Police Department already maintains a policy similar to SB 627. Chief Robert Dunn confirmed that such a policy is already in place and the new legislation would not negate current municipal code, rather mirroring the former. Committee Member Mattucci asked whether SB 627 prohibits officers from wearing masks due to COVID-19 concerns. Chief Dunn clarified that the new state law does not prohibit the use of masks for medical purposes and confirmed that the Torrance Police Department will comply with the new law as required. He noted that staff would further review the legislation to confirm its specific limitations and exceptions. 3 City Council
November 18, 2025
After clarifying conversations with staff, Chair Chen invited public comments on the legislative items presented. At that time, a member of the public expressed frustration that state representatives often register a “No Vote Recorded” (NVR) rather than a formal “No” vote on several bills, stating that NVRs reflect a lack of accountability. Jason Gonsalves responded, explaining that representatives sometimes withhold a vote to signal polite opposition, particularly when the bill’s author is a colleague within the same party.
In closing, Chair Chen expressed a desire to improve communication and collaboration with the City’s state representatives and reiterated Torrance’s core priorities of maintaining a safe and clean community, addressing homelessness, and increasing City revenue. Additionally, Chair Chen requested that staff include the positions of the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters (Torrance Chapter), and South Bay Council of Governments in future legislative tracking reports.
The Committee voted to accept and file the State Legislative Advocacy Update as well as push the item to the full City Council for awareness and consideration.
Conclusion
The 2025 session was characterized by high legislative volume, compressed deadlines, and significant policy activity across key areas. While the City of Torrance’s engagement was proactive, monitoring many bills and issuing 20 position letters, the results highlight the complexity and challenge of influencing statewide legislation in alignment with local priorities. The modest success in our supported-bill category, combined with moderate representative alignment rates, suggests that our approach must evolve to increase influence and alignment in future sessions.
Looking ahead, the upcoming November 2026 General Election (in which all 80 Assembly seats and 20 Senate seats are on the ballot) is likely to reshape the legislature; potentially introducing substantial turnover and shifting dynamics. This underscores the critical importance of strengthening City legislative strategy, formalizing key priorities, and enhancing early engagement with lawmakers.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee 10/22/2025 Meeting Minutes
2. City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee 10/22/2025 Meeting Agenda Item 4A
3. City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee 10/22/2025 Meeting Presentation
4 1
October 22, 2025
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY COMMITTE
1. CALL TO ORDER
The State Legislative Advocacy Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on October 22, 2025, at 12:04 pm in the LeRoy Jackson Council Chamber.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Chen, Committee Member Mattucci, & Committee Member Kaji
Absent: None
Present: Management Associate Carlos Huizar, Staff Assistant Eirenne O’Neill, Planning Manager Oscar Martinez, and Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons (Virtual)
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Committee Member Mattucci.
3. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Chair Chen welcomed those in attendance and requested that committee members introduce themselves to the public.
Staff presenting:
Management Associate, Carlos Huizar, Staff Assistant Eirenne O’Neill, Planning Manager Oscar Martinez, and Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons (virtual)
4. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
4A. City Manager and Community Development – Accept and File Update on the 2025 State Legislative Session. Expenditure: None.
Recommendation of the City Manager and Community Development Director that the City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee accept and file an update on the 2025 State Legislative Session.
Management Associate Carlos Huizar introduced the item and Staff Assistant Eirenne O’Neill provided an overview of the 2025 state legislative session. Staff presented how previously monitored bills fared at the end of the legislative session as well as indicated which bills had a letter of support or opposition. Planning Manager Oscar Martinez provided insight into bills that pertained to planning efforts. Jason Gonsalves from Joe A.
Gonsalves & Sons, virtually provided an analysis on the state legislative session and looked at the 2026 legislative session.
Chair Chen questioned how AB 253 was different than current legislation.
Building Official Keo Uykheang explained the new bill would require a time restriction on construction timelines, matching current plan check timelines. He also explained that the new bill would allow for outside, certified architects to sign off on construction, should the 30-day timeline be unmet.
ATTACHMENT 1
5 2
Chair Chen questioned whether AB 671 was made early in session or if it pertained to the January Wildfires. Building Official Keo Uykheang clarified that AB 253 rather than AB 671 was created as a response to the January 2025 Pacific Palisades wildfires to expedite housing development for wildfire victims. Chair Chen questioned whether the Torrance Police Department already has a policy similar to SB627. Chief Robert Dunn confirmed that Torrance Police Department already has a policy.
o Committee Member Mattucci questioned whether SB627 prohibits officers from wearing masks out of fear of Covid-19. Chief Dunn clarified that the new state law does not prohibit the usage of masks for medical purposes.
Chief Dunn also stated that the police department would follow the state law as mandated and staff would review the new law to confirm its limitations and exceptions.
Chair Chen asked the public if anyone wished to speak on the bills that were already presented before moving forward.
o A member of the public expressed frustration with both state representatives’ choices to utilize a “No Vote Recorded” (NVR) as opposed to a true opposition to several bills. He stated that a NVR is not a good thing and that the state representatives are not doing their job. o Jason Gonsalves of Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons responded, indicating that representatives intentionally withhold a vote for some bills to politely convey their opposition. He further explained that many of the bills are authored by fellow Democrats, therefore a “no” vote can appear too severe amongst their colleagues.
Chair Chen provided final comments:
o Expressed his wish to “do better” with the state representatives that represent the City.
o Reiterated Torrance’s priorities: safe and clean, homelessness, and increasing revenue for the city.
o Requested staff to include the positions of Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters-Torrance Chapter, and South Bay Council of Governments in future legislative tracking sessions.
MOTION: Committee Member Kaji made a motion to accept recommendations and present findings to City Council. Seconded by Committee Member Mattucci. Vote:
Motion carried by a vote of 3-0.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Chen asked if there were any members of the public that wished to speak under the Public Comment section. No members of the public wished to speak at this time.
6. CLOSING REMARKS
Management Associate Carlos Huizar summarized the items that had been discussed during the meeting and confirmed that the State Legislative Update would be forwarded to the full City Council for consideration at an upcoming meeting along with the meeting minutes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
At 1:45 pm, Committee Member Kaji made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Committee Member Mattucci. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 6 4A
Date: October 22, 2025
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the State Legislative Advocacy Committee From: Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Eirenne O'Neill, Staff Assistant | [email protected] Oscar Martinez, Planning Manager | [email protected] Subject: City Manager and Community Development – Accept and File Update on the 2025 State Legislative Session. Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Manager and Community Development Director that the City Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee accept and file an update on the 2025 State Legislative Session.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
The 2025 State Legislative Session was highly active, with over 2,300 bills introduced between the Assembly and Senate. Approximately 1,400 bills originated in the Assembly and 900 in the Senate. The Legislature adjourned on September 30, 2025, after a busy final week marked by numerous last-minute amendments and negotiations. In total, more than 800 bills were sent to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration. The Governor had until October 13, 2025, to sign, veto, or allow measures to become law without his signature, pursuant to Article IV, Section 10(b)(1) of the California Constitution. Governor Newsom signed 705 into law and vetoed 122, approximately 15% of the presented bills. The City of Torrance actively tracked key legislation related to housing, energy, homelessness, taxation, emergency preparedness, and economic development through the 2025 session. Below is a summary of those measures, the City’s position, and their outcomes.
Policy Area Highlights
Housing and Land Use: The City tracked multiple bills addressing the State’s housing crisis, including SB 79 (Weiner), AB 736 (Wicks) and SB 650 (Papan). These measures sought to streamline housing production, expand infill opportunities, and improve affordability near transit. 1 ATTACHMENT 2
7 City Council
October 22, 2025
Energy and Environmental Policy: AB 303 (Addis) reflected growing State interest in integrating renewable energy standards with environmental review, though it did not advance. Broader legislative packages in 2025 focused on reducing utility costs and extending the State’s Cap-and- Trade Program.
Community Services and Homelessness: SB 569 (Blakespear), which the City supported, underscored the Legislature’s continued emphasis on homelessness prevention and service coordination.
Emergency Preparedness: AB 986 (Muratsuchi), co-authored by Torrance’s Assemblymember, represented a key local priority. Despite a gubernatorial veto, the City’s advocacy demonstrated regional leadership in public safety and emergency readiness.
Revenue and Economic Development: SB 346 (Durazo) and SB 828 (Cabaldon) focused on supporting fiscal stability and promoting economic growth through redevelopment of surplus land.
Key Legislation Tracked & Outcomes
Staff actively monitored the 2025 legislative session, submitted letters of support or opposition on key bills impacting local governance, housing, taxation, and public safety. Of the total letters issued, 65% reflected opposition and 35% expressed support, demonstrating the City’s consistent advocacy for local control and fiscally responsible legislation (Attachment 1). An analysis of the City’s tracked legislation indicates a non-alignment between the City’s positions and the voting patterns of Torrance legislative representatives Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-66) and Senator Ben Allen (D-26).
Among the City-supported bills, both Muratsuchi and Allen voted in alignment on most measures, including SB 346 (Revenue and Taxation) and AB 650 (Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy) , which supported municipal flexibility in housing and local tax matters. However, despite their support, several of these bills ultimately died in committee or were vetoed, reflecting limited legislative success despite shared policy intent.
In contrast, several bills opposed by the City, particularly in housing and public policy areas, advanced through the legislature despite opposition from both the City and, in some cases, Muratsuchi or Allen. For instance, SB 79 (Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy) and SB 635 (Street Vendors) passed despite the City’s opposition, with both legislators voting “Yes.” This divergence highlights areas where the City’s priorities for local regulatory control differ from broader state policy directions.
Category Bill Author City
Position Outcome
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 736 Wicks Support Bill Died Energy and Environmental Review AB 303 Addis Support Bill Died Community Services/ Homelessness SB 569 Blakespear Support Bill Died Revenue and Taxation SB 346 Durazo Support Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 650 Papan Support Vetoed Emergency Services & Disaster
Management AB 986 Muratsuchi Support Vetoed
Surplus Land/Economic Development SB 828 Cabaldon Support Passed Transportation SB 445 Wiener Oppose Bill Died
2 8
City Council
October 22, 2025
Law Enforcement SB 627 Wiener,
Arreguin Oppose Passed
Street Vendors SB 635 Durazo Oppose Passed
Right to Rest SB 634 Perez Oppose Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 79 Wiener Oppose Passed
Public Employee’s Retirement Benefits AB 1383 McKinnor Oppose Bill Died Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 11 Lee Oppose Bill Died
Housing AB 1061 Quirk-Silva Oppose Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 677 Wiener Oppose Bill Died Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 507 Haney Oppose Passed
Governance and Labor Relations SB 707 Durazo Oppose Passed Governance and Labor Relations AB 339 Ortega Oppose Passed Telecommunications AB 470 McKinnor Oppose Bill Died
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 893 Fong No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 1154 Carrillo No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing SB 9 Arreguin No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 253 Quirk-Silva No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning AB 671 Gabriel No
Position Passed
Energy and Environmental Review AB 609
Alvarez,
Caririllo, Flora,
Quirk-Silva,
Wicks, Wilson
No
Position Bill Died
Planning and Zoning/Housing AB 874 Farias No
Position Bill Died
Public Resources SB 131
Senate Budget
and Fiscal
Review
Committee
No
Position Passed
Housing AB 130 House Budget
Committee
No
Position Passed
Planning and Zoning SB 415 Reyes No
Position Passed
AB 130: Makes permanent the five-hearing limit on housing development projects originally enacted under SB 330 (2019), as well as the requirement that the local agency determine whether the site of a housing development project is a historic site at the time the application is deemed complete. It also amends the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act to make various requirements of those laws permanent. These include the rule that housing development projects are subject to only the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time a preliminary application was submitted, as well as the time limits for action on an application. The bill also repeals the expiration provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. It also revised CEQA to add statutory exemptions for certain types of projects, including housing projects. The bill includes Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which establishes a new statutory exemption 3 9
City Council
October 22, 2025
for qualifying housing development projects that are 20 acres or less in size (or, in the case of a builder’s remedy project site, five acres or less)
SB 131: Limits CEQA review to those environmental effects caused solely by that condition and waives the need for analysis of project alternatives, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing effects. These provisions do not apply to projects with multiple disqualifying conditions, or to projects involving distribution centers, oil and gas infrastructure or on protected lands. The changes to CEQA under SB 131 are also exempt from CEQA rezoning actions that implement the provisions of a housing element adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c), as well as agricultural employee housing projects.
SB 79 Housing Development: Makes it easier to build more housing near public transit hubs by allowing higher density housing in these areas, often referred to as transit-oriented development (TOD). It addresses the state's housing affordability crisis by creating exemptions from certain environmental reviews for specific projects on transit agency land and establishes rules for development, including affordability requirements and anti-displacement measures. The bill provides local governments with some flexibility to create their own plans, but they must meet state requirements for increasing housing capacity near transit.
SB 71 California Environmental Quality Act: Exempts from its requirements active transportation plans, pedestrian plans, or bicycle transportation plans for the restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
SB 838 Housing Accountability Act: Revises the definition of housing development project to, in the case of mixed-use developments with at least 2/3 of the new or converted square footage designated for residential use, require that no portion of the project be designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed-and-breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except as specified.
AB 726 Planning and zoning: Modifies housing annual report to include additional information regarding units of new housing, the units of housing demolished, and a report on replacement housing units, as specified.
SB 9 Accessory Dwelling Units: Requires ADU Ordinances to be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption for review for compliance. If ordinance is found not to be in compliance, local agencies have up to 30 days to respond and amend or justify compliance.
AB 507 Adaptive Reuse: Modifies existing planning and zoning laws to streamline approvals for projects, such as converting existing commercial office buildings to residential uses, as a use by right if certain conditions are met, including affordability requirements and labor standards.
AB 893 Housing Development Projects: Mandates that HCD conduct two studies, by 2027 and 2031, to evaluate the outcomes of the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022. The Act of 2022 allows development proponents to apply for affordable or mixed-use housing projects within specific zones that allow office, retail, or parking as primary uses and granted as “use by right” without CEQA reviews. The bill amends the act by limiting reviews to areas specifically impacted by construction, ensures existing easements do not disqualify properties from streamlined reviews, and clarifies parking setbacks apply to above ground parking. 4 10
City Council
October 22, 2025
AB 1154 Junior Accessory Dwellings (JADUs): Modifies owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs to only apply to JADUs that share sanitation facilities with the existing home. Additionally, the bill mandates that JADUs must be rented for terms longer than 30 days.
AB 253 California Residential Private Permitting Review Act: Mandates several changes to the residential building permit process for counties and cities. It requires local governments prescribing permit fees to publish a fee schedule online. The bill removes the previous requirement for local authorities to hire private entities for plan checks if the process exceeds 30 days. Instead, it allows applicants to hire a private professional if local processing takes too long.
This private provider must submit an affidavit and a report under penalty of perjury, which the local agency must review within 10 business days. The applicant may resubmit corrected plans if initially non-compliant. The bill adjusts requirements for post-entitlement phase permits, ensuring compliance occurs if a private provider checks the plans. While indemnifying local agencies from liability related to the privately checked plans, it specifies that public agencies are not liable for injuries resulting from their actions or omissions in permitting decisions. The bill also mandates that starting in 2027, the annual report on housing development must include data on permits reviewed by private professionals and the resources dedicated to permit processing. This bill emphasizes that these changes apply statewide and take effect immediately as an urgency statute, without requiring state reimbursement for local implementation costs.
AB 671 Accelerated restaurant building plan approval: This bill would require a local building department, upon the request and at the expense of the permit applicant, to allow a qualified professional certifier, defined as a licensed architect or engineer who meets certain requirements, to certify that the plans and specifications of the tenant improvement comply with all applicable building, health, and safety codes, as specified. The bill would require a qualified professional certifier, or the applicant, as applicable, to prepare certain affidavits related to the tenant improvement under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that timeframe. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the local building department’s review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. The bill would require each local building department to conduct audits of tenant improvements submitted for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt additional qualifications or requirements for qualified professional certifiers, including penalties or reasonable administrative fines for certain actions. The bill would make qualified professional certifiers liable for any damages arising from negligent plan review. The bill would also require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the above-described provisions.
SB 415 Logistics Use Developments: Refines requirements for new and expanded logistics uses under AB 98. AB 98 required setbacks to loading bays from sensitive receptors (residences, schools, daycare, public parks, nursing homes, and hospitals). The Bill further clarifies that these requirements do not apply to properties used primarily for manufacturing or non-storage functions, clarifies that cold storage trucks are only obligated to plug in, as opposed to generally idling, if sufficient power exists onsite to charge; clarifies shared entrances are permissible as long as 5 11
City Council
October 22, 2025
there is a dedicated heavy-duty truck aisle; and clarifies “logistics park” where a development may consist of multiple buildings or logistics uses.
Statewide Special Election
The upcoming statewide special election will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, which will remain in effect until 2030 if approved by California voters. The measure directs the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to resume its role in redrawing congressional district boundaries in 2031. Proposition 50 is the sole item on the ballot for the November 4th special election, and its outcome will determine how Californians are represented in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
The proposed redistricting plan aims to shift the balance of power by flipping five Republican-held House seats in California while making five other competitive districts more favorable to Democrats. This could potentially reduce the number of Republicans in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation to as few as four.
This redistricting strategy, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, thrusts California into a heated nationwide redistricting battle, as President Trump seeks to safeguard his slim Republican majority in the U.S. House. The GOP currently holds a narrow five-seat advantage, the smallest margin in decades.
Conclusion
The 2025 Legislative Session addressed critical issues of housing, affordability, energy resilience, and economic recovery. Although several bills supported by the City did not advance, continued engagement with legislators remains vital to ensuring the City’s priorities are reflected in future sessions.
The November 2026 General Election will be a pivotal one for the State Legislature, with all 80 A ssembly seats and 20 Senate seats on the ballot. At least 35 new members are expected to join the Legislature, in addition to the 37 first-term legislators from 2022, meaning that 60% of lawmakers will have served for two years or less.
This turnover highlights the importance of maintaining proactive outreach and education on the City’s legislative priorities, including housing flexibility, infrastructure investment, and public safety preparedness.
ATTACHMENT
1. 2025 Legislative Session Results Flyer
2. Public Correspondence
6 12
Distribution of Letters
Letters of Opposition
65%
Letters of Support
35%
Letters of Support Letters of Opposition
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
7 13
2025 Legislative
Session Results
City of Torrance Summary of Key Votes
State Assembly
D-66 Assemblyman
Al Murastuchi
October 14, 2025
State Senate
D-26 Senator
Ben Allen
ATTACHMENT 1
7 13
City of Torrance Support
Category Bill Name Al Muratsuchi Ben Allen Outcome
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 736 Yes - BILL DIED Energy and Environmental Review AB 303 - - BILL DIED
Community Services/ Homelessness SB 569 - Yes BILL DIED Revenue and Taxation SB 346 Yes Yes PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 650 Yes Yes VETOED Emergency Services & Disaster
Management AB 986 Yes Yes VETOED
Surplus Land/Economic Development SB 828 Yes Yes BILL DIED City of Torrance Oppose
Category Bill Name Al Muratsuchi Ben Allen Outcome
Transportation SB 445 - Yes BILL DIED
Law Enforcement SB 627 Yes Yes PASSED
Street Vendors SB 635 Yes Yes PASSED
Right to Rest SB 634 Yes Yes PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy SB 79 No No vote PASSED Public Employee’s Retirement Benefits AB 1383 - - BILL DIED Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 11 Yes - BILL DIED Housing AB 1061 No No vote PASSED
Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy SB 677 - - BILL DIED Planning and Zoning/Housing Policy AB 507 No vote Yes PASSED Governance and Labor Relations SB 707 No vote Yes PASSED Governance and Labor Relations AB 339 Yes Yes
Telecommunications Law AB 470 No vote - BILL DIED
8 14
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 10:00 PM
To: East Lion <[email protected]>
Cc: Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>; Santana, Danny <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question regarding SB 79 and the City.
Dear Stephen -
Thank you for reaching out and raising these important questions. We’ll review your concerns and get back to you shortly.
Regards,
ASAM SHEIKH
Councilmember District #3
310-618-2801 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.
Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: East Lion <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 5:44 PM
To: Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>
Subject: Question regarding SB 79 and the City.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Councilman,
I have questions regarding SB 79 and what agency would be the transit agency defined in SB 79 which would own the property which the high density development would be located on. The law states that the transit agencies would own the property, effectively making the property tax free, depriving the city of its share of property tax revenue.
At the same time, I don’t envision the city being a landlord either.
If it is Torrance Transit Agency, would the city be purchasing properties within 1/4-1/2 mile of the Giordano Regional Transit Center located at 465 Crenshaw be the center of that 1/4-1/2 mile radius?
If so, how is the city planning on financing the purchases since the law prevents the use of eminent domain to acquire the property?
9 15
If it is MTA, would they be purchasing properties within that same 1/4-1/2 mile radius, utilizing MTA funds?
If the city has insufficient resources to purchase the properties, I assume the city’s purchasing process would not go forward, correct?
The concept of a legally-required minimum density of 80 units per acre (208 feet by 208 feet square) is a proposition this city is unable to manage. This city does not have the water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure to handle that kind of population addition and won’t have it in the foreseeable future, let alone the funds to purchase properties within the radius of the transit center.
I would request the Council have a hard, “No” in funding this state-mandated boondoggle.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen Saracco II
3202 Sonoma St.Torrance, CA
310-488-7378
10 16
CITY COUNCIL STATE LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2025
12:00 PM 4A
ATTACHMENT 3
17 C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 2
ROLL CALL
18 3
FLAG SALUTE
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 19 4
WELCOME AND
INTRODUCTIONS
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 20 5
AGENDA
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 21 ITEM 4A
RECEIVE UPDATE ON THE 2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION
AND PROVIDE RESULTS ON STATE LEGISLATION.
6C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 22 7C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 2025 State Legislative Session Overview
• 2,300 Total Bills Introduced
• House: 1,777
• Senate: 1,056
• 1,247 Bills sent to Gov. Newsom for review
• Signed: 1124 (~90%)
• Vetoed: 123 (~10%)
• Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi
• Alignment: 45%
• Senator Ben Allen
• Alignment: 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Letters of Support Letters of Opposition
City of Torrance Position Letters
23 8C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 2025-2026
24 9
SB 79
• Allows residential buildings up to seven stories within a walkable half-mile of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development. • Effect: No immediate impacts to Torrance. Once K-Line (previously C-Line) is extended, areas near new stop at MKG Regional Transit Center and Redondo Beach Transit Center will be subject to requirements.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 06/03/2025 and 10/08/2025 (Veto) Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 25 10
AB 507
• Requires local governments to ministerially approve adaptive reuse office-to- residential conversion projects statewide.
• Requires an affordability component.
• Exempts adaptive reuse office-to-residential projects from all impact fees, except any impacts resulting from the site's change of use from non-residential to residential or mixed-use.
• Goes into effect on July 1, 2026
City Position: Oppose
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 493, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 26 11
AB 893
• Current law allows affordable or mixed-income housing developments in office, retail, or parking zones to qualify as “use by right” subject to streamlined ministerial review. • This bill ensures existing easements do not disqualify properties from streamlined reviews.
• Allows projects in campus development zones to qualify for streamlined review, provided they meet affordability standards a.
• Projects located partially or wholly within a half-mile radius of a main campus for a UC, CSU, California Community College are considered within a campus development zone.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 27 12
AB 893 (CONT.)
• Limits local government review of sites to only areas impacted by construction. • Modifies parking setback requirements, applying them only to above ground parking. • Requires HCD to undertake at least two studies on the outcomes of the act; to be completed on or before January 1, 2027, and another to be completed on or before January 1, 2031.
• No state reimbursement is needed for these mandates.
City Position: No official position. SBCCOG + Cal Cities Oppose Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 500, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 28 13
AB 1061
• Eliminates the historical district protections for SB 9 projects (urban lot splits on single-family zoned parcels).
• Local governments may only disallow the project if it is on a historical landmark.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 04/28/25 and 10/08/25 (Veto) Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 505, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 29 14
AB 1154
• Minor code clean up in California Government Code Section 66322 for existing exemptions.
• Provision to remove owner-occupancy requirement for Junior ADUs that have separate sanitation facilities.
• Requires Junior ADUs to be rented for terms longer than 30 days.
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 507, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 30 15
SB 9
• Under current law, local agencies mist submit ADU ordinances to HCD within 60 days of adoption. If necessary, agencies must respond and amend ordinances within 30 days.
• This bill invalidates ordinances not submitted within 60 days. • Invalidates ordinances not revised/responded to within 30 days of HCD findings.
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 510, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 31 16
SB 634
• Prohibits a local jurisdiction from adopting a local ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance that restricts:
• A person or organization from providing support services to a person who is homeless or assisting with;
• Any act related to basic survival.
• Current law prohibits a state agency from adopting or enforcing any rule or a violation of which can result in the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, or both, unless by a statute.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 06/25/25 and 10/08/25 (Veto) Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 521, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 32 17
SB 346
• Require short-term rental facilitators to provide the physical address, including ZIP Code, of a short-term rental listing to the City, (upon request). •
• If address is not sufficient: Allow the City to request Assessors Parcel Number (APN), the listing URL, and additional identification information • Provides cities audit authority for transient occupancy taxes collected and remitted by short-term rental facilitators.
City Position: Support
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 751, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 33 18
SB 707
• The Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate.
• Until January 1, 2030, requires a city council or a county board of supervisors to comply with additional meeting requirements, including that all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a 2-way telephonic service or a 2-way audiovisual platform, as defined, that a system is in place for requesting and receiving interpretation services for public meetings, as specified, and that the city council or county board of supervisors encourage residents to participate in public meetings, as specified.
City Position: Opposition
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 327, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 34 19
AB 339
• Requires the governing body of a public agency to give recognized employee organization no less than 45 days’ written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classification represented by the recognized employee organization.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 07/17/25 and 10/08/25 (Veto) Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 687, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 35 20
AB 253
• On a “completed application,” the local jurisdiction must give an estimated timeframe for compliance review.
• If the estimated timeframe > 30 business days, or no compliance determination within 30 days, applicant can hire a private professional provider to perform plan check. • “Private professional provider” means a professional engineer… or an architect ….who is currently certified as a residential plans examiner…. the private professional provider shall not have a financial interest in the residential building permit or in preparing the plans and specifications.
• Private professional provider must submit an affidavit (under penalty of perjury) and a plan check report; jurisdiction must act within 10 business days after receipt or deemed approved. • If the local agency notifies noncompliance, applicant may resubmit or have corrections reviewed.
Status: Signed by the Governor on 10/10/2025 as urgency (effective immediately)
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 36 21
AB 671
• Local permitting department shall allow, upon request from an applicant for a permit for a tenant improvement relating to a restaurant, a qualified professional certifier to certify, at the applicant’s expense, compliance with applicable building, health, and safety codes for the tenant improvement.
• The local building department or enforcement agency must approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days after receiving a complete application. • If the agency fails to act within 20 business days, the certified plan is deemed approved for permitting purposes, assuming fees and documents are submitted. • If the department denies the initial application, the applicant can resubmit corrected plans addressing only the deficiencies cited. The department’s review of each resubmission is limited to those deficiencies, and it must act within 10 business days of receipt. • Mandates audits of certified plans.
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 470, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 37 22
SB 627
• This bill makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer, as defined, to wear a facial covering in the performance of the duties, except as specified, and requires any law enforcement agency operating in California to maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting the use of facial coverings, as specified. • By July 1, 2026, a law enforcement agency, as defined, operating in California shall maintain and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings • City Position: Letter of Opposition sent on 07/09/2025 • Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 125, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 38 23
SB 635
• Prohibits an agency or department of a local authority that regulates street vendors or compact mobile food operations (CMFOs), or enforces sidewalk vending regulations, from collecting citizenship or criminal background data, and limits the activities that a local government can do related to immigration enforcement.
City Position: Letter of Opposition sent on 07/03/2025
Status: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 463, Statutes of 2025.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 39 24
Dead/Vetoed Bills
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 40 25
AB 1383
Modifies the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) to increase pensionable compensation, defined benefit retirement formulas, and contribution cost sharing. • Sets, for service earned on or after January 1, 2026, the pensionable compensation limit for all PEPRA members to a related dollar limitation established and adjusted annually for inflation under federal law. • Lowers the benefit age factor, from age 57 to age 55, for the three existing retirement formulas for PEPRA safety members and creates a fourth PEPRA safety formula of 3% at age 55, applicable to existing and new PEPRA members beginning January 1, 2026. An employer and employees may agree in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to place members in a lower or higher safety formula. • Allows an employer and employees to collectively bargain and agree in an MOU for the employer to pay a portion of an employee’s contribution.
City Position: Letter of Opposition sent on 05/02/2025
Status: Bill Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 41 26
SB 445
• Directs the High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), in consultation with specified entities, to develop both internal rules governing HSRA’s engagement of specified utilities to ensure coordination and cooperation in relocating utility infrastructure and regulations governing local agency permits and approvals. • Requires local governments, utilities, and other third parties to respond to permit requests within specific timeframes to prevent delays, making the process faster and more reliable.
City Position: Letter of Opposition sent on 07/10/2025
Status: Bill Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 42 27
AB 470
• This bill would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in coordination with the Office of Emergency Services (OES), to adopt a process for telephone corporations to petition the CPUC to amend their status as a carrier of last resort (COLR) in designated areas by December 15, 2026, as specified.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 07/16/25 and 10/08/25 (Veto) Status: Bill Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 43 28
AB 986
• California Emergency Services Act gives the Governor authority to proclaim a state of emergency in an area affected or likely to be affected when: conditions of disaster or extreme peril exist; the Governor is requested to do so upon request from a designated local government official; or the Governor finds that local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency.
• Current statute provides multiple examples of conditions that may constitute an emergency, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, fires, and floods. AB 986 would add landslides to that list.
City Position: Letter of Support sent on 09/18/25
Status: Vetoed
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 44 29
AB 11
• Create a state housing authority to build residential development in communities across California to meet the state’s RHNA goals for extremely low and very low- income housing.
• Does not need to comply with local housing elements approved by the state, follow local regulations, zoning codes or height limits.
• The proposed housing authority only needs to consult with local jurisdictions’ preferences for the specific site of development, the number of stories, the number of units, or the development timeline.
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 04/28/2025 Status: Bill Died
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 45 30
AB 303
• Revises the permitting review process for Battery Energy Storage Systems facilities. • Denies any pending applications as of the effective date of AB 303. • Provide objective separation requirements and would impose a state-mandated local program to review proposed development projects that include a battery energy storage system at the local agency level.
City Position: Support
Status: Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 46 31
AB 609
• Exempts a housing development project that meets certain conditions on sites up to 20 acres from the requirements of CEQA.
• Requires a local government, to require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment as a condition of approval.
Status: Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 47 32
AB 650
• Amends and significantly improve the housing element review process. • Allows local jurisdictions to begin Housing Element update and planning six (6) months earlier, providing greater clarity, providing certainty to a difficult and complex process.
• Support good faith actors that are working through the housing element review process.
• Require HCD to provide written communication that identifies specific deficiencies in the proposed Housing Element draft and text or analysis.
City Position: Support
Status: Vetoed
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 48 33
AB 736
• Authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion dollars to finance affordable rental housing and homeownership programs.
• Allows for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the June 2, 2026, statewide primary election.
City Position: Support
Status: Bill Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 49 34
AB 874
• Requires local agencies to waive all fees or charges for a residential development project that has a 55-year regulatory agreement with at least 49% of the total units reserved for lower-income households at an affordable rent. • Only allows the local agency to collect fees to fund code enforcement, inspection services, or other fees to pay for enforcing local ordinances or state law.
Status: Died in Committee
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 50 35
SB 569
• This measure requires Caltrans to develop locally tailored plans for homeless encampments on state-owned land. It would also require the department to establish advisory committees in each Caltrans district, set clear timelines, speed up the contracting process, and provide additional funding to better help transition people into shelter and services.
City Position: Support
Status: Bill Died
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 51 36
SB 677
• Limits local government’s ability to impose objective standards on SB 9 projects with 1,750 net habitable square feet in the floor area.
• Eliminates local agencies’ ability to enforce:
City Position: Letter of Opposition Submitted on 04/25/2025 Status: Bill Died
• Setback requirements.
• Height.
• Lot coverage.
• Floor area ratios.
• Any other standard that would limit residential
development capacity for these projects.
• Prohibits local governments from collecting impact
fees for projects less than 1,750 square feet.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 52 37
Gonsalves & Sons Update
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 53 38
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Recommendation of the City Manager and
Community Development Director that the City
Council State Legislative Advocacy Committee
accept/file an update on the 2025 State Legislative
Session.
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 54 39
QUESTIONS?
C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 55 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
40C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 56 CLOSING REMARKS
41C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 57 ADJOURNMENT
42C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A T E L E G I S L A T I V E A D V O C A C Y C O M M I T T E E 58