Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

I ask all Members of the committee to be present in room 1200 so we can establish our quorum. We have 19 bills on today's agenda. However, file item number 16, AB 1381, by Assembly Member Weber has been pulled by the author.

Before we, no, we're not doing that because we don't have a quorum. So we're going to start as a Subcommittee. Do we have an author in the room? Assembly Member Lee. What number is this? Number one, AB 38. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. I am presenting two bills today, but I'm going to start with AB 38. I will be accepting the committee amendments to specify that this Bill applies to newly installed lights and exempts fairgrounds operated by district agricultural associations from the Bill.

AB 38 limits outdoor night lighting on state buildings and structures to promote safety for people, ecosystems and other wildlife. In addition, this reform conserves energy and reduces our carbon footprint. Artificial light at night, or ALAN, has increased to unprecedented levels globally and in California.

This has resulted in a disruption to circadian rhythms in plants and animals which harms our ecosystems. According to the National Audubon Society, 70% of bird species migrate each year. And of those birds, 80% migrate at night, using the night sky to help them navigate to and from their breeding grounds.

Every day in the United States, at least 1 million birds die due to building or structure collisions related to ALAN excessive artificial light. Artificial lighting also has detrimental effects on humans, teens and adolescents who live in areas that have high levels of artificial light at night, or are more likely to have mood and anxiety disorders and interrupted sleep patterns. And at least 19 states, District Columbia and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, including limiting artificial light at night.

All address similar concerns central to this Bill protecting humans, ecosystems and other wildlife from hazards caused by excessive night lighting. And to address this issue, AB 38 will require outdoor lighting fixtures on state buildings and structures, including state parks and lands, to have an external shield, direct light to where it is needed, or be equipped with the shut off dimming device. The sensible reform promotes safety for migratory birds, ecosystems, and people.

And with that, I'd like to introduce my witness testifying in support today, Michael Simonovich, a lighting professor at the University of California Davis.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Michael Siminovitch, and I'm a professor at UC Davis, and I'm the Director of the California Lighting Technology Center.

And I'm pleased to be here this morning to provide educational input based on our years of research at Davis. At Davis, we've done a lot of research on exterior lighting, and it's our strong contention that approximately 50% of the light that we produce here in California is totally wasted. This egregious waste of energy resulting to a cost burden to the State of California can be largely eliminated using both advanced lighting controls and appropriate optics to shield the light where it needs to go.

There are two important outcomes that we can realize by more careful and prudent application of lighting at night. Firstly, a significant energy and cost savings to the State of California. This aligns very closely with Governor Newsom's aggressive greenhouse goals and mitigation goals.

Secondly is reducing the negative biological impacts that light has on humans and other species at night. Scientific American recently published an article on this. It clearly articulates the issue associated with nighttime light pollution.

This issue was also addressed in 2016 by the American Medical Association, which calls for limiting the amount of light that we see at night. The use of adaptive controls to reduce light during nighttime using vacancy sensors, scheduling, and dimming has been demonstrated to be highly cost effective. In California buildings.

We often see 50% to 70% savings in many of these kinds of applications. It has been broadly implemented through Title 24 and has been shown to save a lot of energy. In closing, as educational input, we believe that there are cost effective and proven technologies that are available today that can reduce this 50% waste that we see at light in California also will reduce the impact on humans and other species.

The State of California's building portfolio should be a leadership model for all of us in terms of mitigating cost, increasing energy efficiency, and also the burden on our species. And I thank you for this opportunity for input. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 1200.

Hi, Samantha Samuelson for Defenders of Wildlife in support.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Anybody in the room in opposition, please come forward. That's not somebody? All right, so we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. This includes anyone either in support or opposition.

Please state your name, your affiliation and position only. I'm limiting the MeToos to a total of ten minutes. I doubt we're going to hit that on this one, but moderator, can you please call for any witnesses for AB 38.

Certainly. Thank you. I'll ask them please press 10 at this time. Again, it's 10 and we'll first go to line 26. Line 26, you're open. Perhaps your mute is on. Next caller. Well, next go to line 13.

Good morning. Kathy Schaefer on behalf of Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley Chapters in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we've got line ten.

Good morning. Abigail Mighell on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

And none further at this time.

Thank you. Moderator so we'll bring it back to our Members. Any Members have any questions or comments? Senator Wilk.

Not a question, just a comment. I think this is a great Bill. We have a state building in my community, and of course, because it's a state building, it's exempt from local ordinance and external light sign outside. I swear you can see from space it's totally inappropriate.

I don't know what it does to wildlife, but I know it annoys the heck out of me and everybody else who sees it. So this is long overdue and happy to move the Bill when we have a full committee.

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chair.

Yes. Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. My question would be, are we able to on some of these buildings turn down the lights a little bit? In my dining room you could just turn it up or turn it down. Are we going to be able to reduce that 20%, 30%? Are we looking for a percentage as well?

So my Bill is dealing with newly installed so once, say, this light bulb burns out, right? When you install, you install to the higher standards. So, unfortunately, current existing buildings right now, we don't do that yet unless they're prompted to be done. The dimming features are going to be some of those upgraded features we're going to talk about, including shields, dimming or those time turn off, like if you weren't in the room, it would turn off kind of thing or weren't around space, I guess, because they're outside.

So those would be things done in the future when you say the light burns out.

Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Okay, so we don't have a quorum, but would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Respectfully ask for aye vote when the time comes.

All right, thank you very much. I have to go present at a committee hearing, so Vice Chair Wilk will be taking over now. Thank you.

Gavel, please. Gavel, please.

No.

All right. We're going to move on to File Item Two: AB 835. Once again, it is Assemblyman Lee, and go ahead and proceed.

All right. Thank you, Chair and Senators. I want to start by saying that I accept the amendments on page five of the Committee analysis. Currently, California requires two stair exit routes in apartment buildings above three stories tall. However, there are mid rise buildings throughout Europe with single staircases.

Many European countries allow buildings with single staircases and have better records on fire safety than United States because European buildings generally have more modern safety features like sprinklers, which could also be implemented in America. The bill will help bring this type of building to United States by directing the State Fire Marshal to research standards for single stairway, multiunit residential buildings, and submit a report to Legislature.

Particularly for infill developments, the Single Staircase Prohibition adds cost and may reduce the number of units built on the project's footprint. I believe having the Fire Marshal conduct the study will start the conversation about leveraging existing fire and emergency response technologies and strategies to maximize housing projects. And with that, I'd like to introduce my witness and support, Luis Morante from the Bay Area Council.

And you have two minutes, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Luis Morante on behalf of Bay Area Council. I represent the Bay Area Council, which for on housing issues, which represents about 300 or so of the Bay Area's larger employers, including about 60 or 70 firms in the development industry.

We've talked extensively about building code issues, land use reform issues in recent years, but this is, I think, a great idea that works within existing envelopes. It doesn't go around zoning, doesn't do anything local governments have already not decided to do to get creative about ways to reduce the cost of building.

This is going to be particularly helpful for those smaller infill buildings. The fourplexes triplexes, those types of things, but in general, a single stair requirement can reduce the amount of interior floor circulation from about 20 percent to 25 percent of the building under the dual-loaded corridor system we have today to about 12 percent.

So you get about half the cost going towards circulation, half the land cost going to circulation, half the construction costs going to circulation that you otherwise would. I think that's an important step forward in making it easier and cheaper to build housing in California, and I urge your support for this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room in support? Seeing none, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody else who wants to lend their voice in opposition? Seeing none, let's move to the phone's moderator. We will take both pro and con on File Item Two: AB 835.

AB 835, please press one zero at this time.

Need my readers.

And it's one zero. Give me just a moment here. We'll go first to line number 28. 28, your line is open. We'll move on to line number 17.

We'll take that as a yes.

Hi. I'm 17?

Yep. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Chelsea Gooden. I live in Los Angeles and my Senator, Senator Durazo. I am calling in support of AB 835, the single staircase bill. Not only do I think it's so great for supporting affordable housing and the issues that were just mentioned, but it's also going to just make our city more beautiful.

We're so sick of the sterile, rectangular boxes that are just piling up in this city and this bill actually can increase beautiful development while also increasing things like ventilation and green space and sustainability and affordable housing.

There's so many benefits to supporting this bill, and I think that to build neighborhood character and housing cohesion, this is actually a beautiful way forward that makes lots of people happy.

Great. Thank you for your testimony. Moving forward, we're now in the #MeToo part of testimony, so it's your name and your position. She had a lovely voice and she was very enthusiastic, so I allowed it, but moving forward, we're not going to do that. Okay, Moderator, anyone else?

Yes, certainly. Thank you. I will go to line 11.

Hi. My name is Jennifer Levin. I'm calling on behalf of the Livable Communities Initiative and I am in support of this bill.

Perfect. Thank you. Perfect. Now it's kind of perfect.

Pardon me. Next we'll go to line 14. And 14, your line is open.

All right, we'll take that as a yes. Let's go to the next line.

Line eleven.

I already spoke. Hello?

Hi.

All right, let me see here. Give me just a moment.

Yeah, I think they're having trouble assigning the line.

Just a moment here.

Mr. Moderator, she called you out.

We'll next go to line 21.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi. My name is Lee Linden Lowde, and I live in Los Angeles, California. I'm calling because I support AB 835. I too, believe in the Livable Community Initiative. I think we need to go forward with better buildings, healthier buildings, affordable buildings, so our families and children can live here.

25, please go ahead. 25, you're open.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Renee Greet. I live in Los Angeles and I am also in support of this bill on behalf of the Livable Communities Initiative. I think this is very important that we move forward with this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 18.

I didn't--I didn't get--I didn't get a number, but I'm going to speak for 18. My name is Francie E. Tanzi. I live in Los Angeles. I'm calling in support of AB 835. My main issue about this is the affordability--

Thank you. Ma'am, at this point, we're just taking #MeToo testimony, so name, bill number, position. So, thank you. It's duly noted.

Next is line 12.

Hi. My name is Lindsay Sturman and I live in Los Angeles, and I am calling in support of AB 835 as well.

Perfect. Thank you.

Line 24. Please go ahead. Line 24. We can go to line 19.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi. My name is Stephen Martin. I live in Los Angeles, Senator Durazo's district, and I am in support of AB 835.

Thank you.

And currently none further in queue.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Great job. Pull it back to my Committee Member for any questions, comments, concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. You're doing a great job.

Thank you.

I like the bill, and I'm just wondering how we got it to California. Did we send someone out to Europe? They saw what was going on and we were inspired. We realized our affordable housing crisis. What prompted this bill to come before us?

Yeah, I would say it's a coalition of our sponsors and some from my personal experience too, is that especially in a lot of developed countries we are peers with, especially in urban infill cities. Like if you imagine a lot that's no bigger really than this Committee room, oftentimes these three, four, five, six story buildings only have one staircase and they're able to obviously serve everyone there and still be very safe for everyone. It's especially poignant for what I would call skinny buildings, especially those lots are very small in cities.

If you're going to dedicate more spaces to stairwells, that's less space you can do for homes, right, and you see this very successful in Asia and Europe so we thought to replicate this and--at least with the study right now, this is not mandating anything.

This is not requiring anything. This is saying, 'hey, let's let the fire marshal decide if this is something we should adopt for three or more stories above' because right now, if you have a townhome that's three stories, you know, one single family residence, you can obviously have one staircase for your whole three story family house.

Very good. I'll obviously support the bill and at the appropriate time move it.

Great. Well, I didn't mention this earlier, so I'll mention it now. The recommendation is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee.' This bill is support support and you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. Thank you so much.

Well done. Thank you. We go in file order in the Senate, but I don't see the author for File Item Three.

So we're going to move to file item four Assemblyman Ward from the great city of San Diego. AB 302 recommendation is due pass to Judiciary Committee and with that floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. California is leading the way in adopting automated decision making systems across state agencies to modernize and deliver services more efficiently. When used properly, these systems can benefit Californians.

However, if these systems are not designed and implemented correctly, they can create unfairly, biased or inaccurate results that harm some Californians. AB 302 will require the California Department of Technology to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high risk automated decision systems being used by state agencies. The Bill will ensure that Californians have transparency into the government's use of high risk ADS systems and provide state agencies with the tools to analyze the use of these systems and minimize the risk of discriminatory impacts.

I'd like to present my witness in support of the Bill, Caroline Siegel Singh, representing the Greenlining Institute. And when the time comes, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Two minutes and proceed.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members. My name is Caroline Siegel-Singh and I am here today on behalf of the Greenlining Institute where I work to ensure that technology can help close the racial wealth gap and build greater economic opportunity for communities of color. I'm here today as sponsor of AB 302, a crucial government transparency measure that would provide Members of the Legislature with both awareness of and oversight over the use of automated decision making systems, or ADS, which are already being used by state agencies.

In particular, this Bill focuses on accounting for ADS tools that make critical decisions which impact California consumers access to things like health care, public benefits, criminal justice, housing, and credit. AB 302 would do this by empowering the California Department of Technology to conduct a comprehensive inventory of the most impactful automated systems being used in California state government, and then submitting this inventory to the Legislature on an annual basis. California, like many other states and federal agencies, increasingly uses ADS tools to increase the efficiency of government services and improve decision making.

These systems can process significant amounts of data, automate tasks like document verification at the DMV, or identify potential fraud in unemployment and tax filings at the Franchise Tax Board. With the increasing use of these automated decision making tools, California has a responsibility to have proper insight into both where these systems are used, what they are designed to do, and how potential risks in the use of these systems are being addressed. For the above reasons, we're asking for you to support AB 302, which will help us build trust and accountability in the use of government ADS. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room in support? Any witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move to the phones. Mr. Moderator.

Thank you again, ladies and gentlemen. Please press 10 at this time. I guess 10 currently. Nobody in queue.

All right. With that, we'll pull it back to the committee. Questions? Comments, concerns? I'm sure Senator Archuletta has a comment.

Well, I get to do that. I was here bright and early.

I know, absolutely. You were here on time.

Anyway, thank you for bringing this forward. Obviously, when we're talking about public services and fraud, it comes into play, as she just mentioned. But when I turned the clock back, I look back at EDD, the issues we had. If we had this in place, would that have been prevented? I know that's a crazy question, but we've got to do something to enhance what we're trying to do is serve the general public.

And if we can do it with technology, yes, this is a step forward, and we have to analyze the systems we have, improve, and we certainly have to fund what we need to so we don't have problems like we did with EDD or even issues with the DMV that we had a couple of three years ago. So I thank you for bringing this Bill forward, and again, I will move it at the appropriate time. My question to you, Assembly Member, with your expert, are we looking to really change the system in reference to EDD and fraud?

Thank you for the question and those observations. I fully agree with you. And I think we recognize, as the Legislature has studied really closely the experiences that we saw at EDD, first with the fraudulent cases, really bad actors, even some that were currently incarcerated at the time that were abusing the opportunities that we were affording Californians to be able to receive unemployment.

Incorrectly doing so, the fraud activity happened. So we almost overcorrected for that. And then when the height of the requests were coming in for constituents to be able to access their benefits and unprecedented levels, too many, as we had all experienced, were getting tripped up in some of these systems, many of them that were related to technology because something has helped them to process this.

But it's almost that we sort of set that threshold a little bit too far over here, and it was capturing more people, triggering them for a fraud risk. And then we were having to go on the back end and correct all that as fast as possible so people could pay the rent. But yes, EDD being one of the agencies, the DMV, you mentioned as well, some document processing the ability for our departments, our agencies, to be able to make decisions on welfare services, on healthcare reimbursements, on climate investments.

There's a broad range of California agencies that use ADS, but we don't know the totality of that. So that's part of what this Bill does is be able to sort of look at all of our state agencies and those boards and commissions appointed by the Governor and others as defined to make sure that we understand that. And then within those that use ADS as defined, what is the decision that is rendered? What is some of the research that might be out there that understands how that decision, what either the efficacy or the benefits are of using ADS? What are some of the inaccurate or indiscriminatory or unintended consequences that might be being produced as we see our communities of concern? A little bit more disaffected, our seniors more disaffected in their ability to either process or get flagged for certain decisions.

So these are all very important things. As we are doing more and more AI and more and more use of technology. Important. We should be efficient, but we want to make sure there's no unintended consequences.

Long answer. To answer your question, yes, I think there's some interlineation with the ability to improve the efficacy of delivering EDD services without increasing the risk of fraud. But I think that the benefits here are going to be far much better for us to be able to be comfortable with the inclusion of ADS systems across all state agencies.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

I'm assuming that you're close.

I would be happy to close and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Our next author is not here, so we're going to continue down. We're going to move to File Item Eight: AB 1031, Assemblyman Lowenthal. The recommendation from the Chair is 'do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee,' and with that, sir, whenever you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Mr. Chair, are you okay if I use props?

Yes.

Pleased to present AB 1013 which will require type 48 licensees--those are bars, those are taverns--to offer for sale to customers drug testing devices such as test strips, test coasters that can detect the presence of controlled substances that are commonly used to spike or lace an individual's drink.

That's called 'roofieing.' I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and would like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for their work on the bill. The underreported epidemic of roofieing continues to plague California and the world.

Unfortunately, roofieing is often used to facilitate the commission of other crimes such as sexual assault and rape. Roofieing is often an elusive crime. It can be difficult to catch perpetrators in the act.

Additionally, victims who have already been drugged, they may be disoriented, incapacitated, appear to be inebriated, unable to identify or communicate who the perpetrator may be, or may not even know who spiked their drink in the first place. Once someone has had their drink spiked or roofied, it is frequently too late to prevent the drugged individual from falling victim to another crime such as sexual assault or rape. I liken this crisis to the drunk driving epidemic that we had for some time.

Once somebody is already in the act of drunk driving, it is too late. The way we need to deal with it is through preventative measures. Furthermore, once someone has been drugged, the controlled substances usually pass through their system overnight.

The presence of these substances is undetectable after the individual first urinates in the morning and would not be detectable without laboratory testing of hair follicles within approximately 30 days after ingestion. While anyone can have their drinks spiked, the individuals of these crimes are all too often women and LGBTQ plus individuals. I opine, as a matter of fact, that if it were men that were victims to this crime, it would be a holy war in the State of California, but because it is women and LGBTQ plus individuals, we have let it go on this long.

Due to the challenges of addressing and prosecuting this crime after it has taken place, preventative measures are a common sense way to try to curb instances of drugging. Drug test devices like these. These are coasters. Test strips.

You can simply take a few drops of your drink and place them on and know immediately if your drink has the presence of GHB, ketamine, Rohypnol. These devices are able to detect the presence of controlled substances usually and most commonly used to spike an individual's drink. They're readily available and they're currently being used at bars and night clubs, at U.S. military bases, numbers of colleges and universities, not just in the United States.

The UK has a robust program now, Australia has a robust program, and so forth. Requiring that these are available for sale or for free at type 48 license establishments is a common sense way to protect individuals from being drugged and falling victim to other crimes.

Before I introduce the expert here I'd like to introduce in support of the bill, I'd like to point out that I am a bar and restaurant owner, have been for decades in the State of California; the very last thing anyone who owns an establishment would want is to know that their establishment has facilitated the act of sexual assault, violence in any capacity whatsoever. I can also tell you that the alcohol companies themselves, Anheuser-Busch, Corona, Coors, and so forth, we expect them, once this does become law, to get in on the act, to participate by providing these to the establishments as a branding exercise in a very similar way that they are involved now in anti-drunk driving initiatives.

They want, as do the owners of the establishments, a safe environment for people to go out, for young people to go out. Pleased to be joined today by Mr. Michael Scippa, Shippa with Alcohol Justice here to support in testify of the bill. Excuse me if I butchered your last name, sir.

You came close. It's Scippa. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Mike Scippa with Alcohol Justice. Alcohol Justice is a public health advocacy organization based in San Rafael. For 35 years, we have advocated for evidence-based policies dealing with alcohol and drug issues.

We seek to protect public health and safety. It isn't often that we get to support a bill. Most of the time we're up here opposing bad policies that we know will hurt public health and safety.

This bill, however, goes in the opposite direction and we are totally supportive. The actual incidence of having a drug put in one's drink without one's knowledge, spiking or roofieing varies from around six to 25 percent, depending on the survey. Yet even the lowest rate, one in 20, means that you can look around any given bar on a Friday night and know that at least one person in that room has or will become a victim of a spiked drink.

Even if the only result is unwanted extreme intoxication, the experience can be deeply upsetting with feelings of anxiety and/or mistrust that lasts for years. This is not the only result, however. Along with acquaintance rape, other forms of sexual assault, this person may be humiliated, robbed, and/or injured.

Worse yet, however, is the risk of death. Not only are the most common additives, benzodiazepines and/or GHB or other hypnotics, synergistic with alcohol, thus lowering the threshold for life-threatening alcohol poisoning, but recent changes in the illegal drug activity and supply in the state pose a risk that that Mickey could include fentanyl or other adulterants that are fatal on their own. This proposed bill goes far for empowering individuals to monitor their drink and normalize the act of additive testing for those who might be hesitant to engage in it.

We believe this has the potential to reduce incidents of deep trauma for thousands of bar patrons and reduce alcohol harm in the state. We totally support it. Thank you for bringing it forward.

Good morning, Senators. Fred Jones on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems in support.

Thank you. All right, moving to opposition. Anybody in the room wanting to speak in opposition of the bill? Seeing none, we will move to the phones where we will take testimony. Yay and nay. Mr. Moderator, are you ready? So this is File Item Number Eight: AB 1013.

Thank you. And please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero. Give me a moment here. Nobody in queue currently.

Thank you, sir. Pull it back to the Committee. Senator Archuleta? No?

What about over here?

Absolutely. I was getting there.

Thank you, Chair. Assembly Member Lowenthal, thank you for bringing this bill forward. This is actually really exciting to me to hear kind of the other end. Drug-assisted rape is one of those topics that are very near and dear to me and I've been working on legislation to kind of help perpetrators be accountable.

I think you probably know that it's less of an offense to rape somebody if you drug them first. So you get less of a consequence if you go to the extra step to drug them before you rape them, which to me just does not make sense in California. So we're working on that in the Senate.

When I read your bill, some questions came to mind for me. Typically, I don't like anything that mandates our small businesses to do things like requirements but as I read through your bill, what this really spoke to me was that partnership, that partnership between bars and restaurants to make sure that their patrons are safe.

So thank you for taking that angle. One question I have is, 'what is the cost of these devices?' I know you mentioned that working with the beverage distributors to possibly use it as a marketing tool, particularly for the coasters. I love that idea. I think it's a great way to bring branding in, but curious about cost. Have you explored that?

First of all, Senator, thank you for your questions. Thank you for your work. I look forward to partnering with you on further legislation. If there's any way I can be assistant of you, I would like to do so. I can tell you from my experience as a bar owner, there are things that alcohol companies are able to participate with and things that are not.

They're not allowed to participate by providing free alcohol, which as many establishments are getting open, that's something that they could use, but they don't. But what they are able to provide are bar supply. If you walk into an establishment, you'll often see umbrellas provided by Corona, the felt on a pool table by Anheuser-Busch, various alcohol companies that are providing coasters and so forth.

So this fits very much in line with that. I expect them fully and frankly, already engaged in discussion with many of those companies to get them ready for this and they're very excited. For them to be able to provide--participate in a safe environment means it's better business for them.

To answer your question specifically about the cost, in bulk, we expect the cost to be very much nominal. A consumer can buy, for example, on Amazon for less than a dollar per test strip. The bill does not mandate whether or not these should be for free or sold. That can be up to the bar and the bar owner as a matter of fact.

The last thing we want to do is to put anything onerous on any small business, and I'm one of them, so I can tell you. I can relate to this totally and completely. I'd like to just conclude answering your question by giving you an anecdote. As part of my research for this, I spoke with my best friend's son who's the Social Director of his fraternity, and a bouncer at a bar at Ole Miss.

So not here in California, but college, right? And I said, 'are you dealing with a roofieing crisis on campus?' He said, 'yes, it's widespread. It's a big problem.' So, well, 'what are you doing about it?' He said, 'well, we made the determination in our fraternity to no longer offer open container alcohol whatsoever. Everything must be closed container. So if somebody comes to a party, it opens a closed container for them.' I said, 'that's genius. What was the effect of that?' He said, 'our parties tripled in size overnight.'

All of the young women wanted to come to these parties because they felt safer, and then all the men wanted to come because the women were there. I said, 'thank you for that information. That's really helpful.'

Really?

Yes, thank you. Demand and supply. Thank you. Another question that I had, a part of your bill talks about posting requirements in the restroom. One of the campaigns that I felt was very successful was around the domestic violence campaign, particularly in the women's restroom where there were signs that said, 'do you feel safe at home? Call this number.' Tell me how you picture this requirement being posted in the restrooms. What are you envisioning?

Well, Senator, the idea here is to increase awareness. We're at the beginning of a journey. Again, I go back to the issue around drunk driving. With drunk driving, it takes an all in campaign. Law enforcement is involved. The drinking establishments are involved. There's public information campaigns that we participate, as a matter of fact, in the State of California, local jurisdictions are doing so, and we need to engage upon that with this roofieing crisis.

This is the first bill--actually, I have another bill that's on consent that deals with this--which is having these materials involved at college campuses but we need to start, and just like now, in the case of drunk driving, you have designated drunk drivers. You have different mechanisms that people engage in. We need to educate in every way possible that everyone needs to be part of the solution. So it's not just protecting yourself.

It's also being aware that the entire establishment is being vigilant about it, and that all the patrons have a responsibility to look out for one another, to report it if they see it, and to let each other know that those test trips are available. So this is an education process. We're going to learn from it.

We don't know how perfect it's going to be because this is unprecedented. So I think you're going to see me back here year after year as we're looking at these things and trying to measure the effectiveness of this. Senator, one last thing I do want to tell you, the extent of this problem is massive.

It is.

It is massive. People in the building here have been roofied. People on my staff have been roofied. I was speaking to somebody in the third house and talking to her about the bill, and as I was speaking about it, her eyes began to water up, and she told me a personal story of being roofied and assaulted, and we're not doing anything about it. So this is a very easy way to step into this, but it's not going to be the last thing.

Thank you for that. I don't have any other questions, but I'd like to move when appropriate. Thank you.

Absolutely. Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assembly Member, I like your bill, too. I have two questions. I think you answered the first one already. One of my concerns is this might give somebody a false sense of security, but I think you kind of dealt with that on the education avenue of it.

One of the things, so maybe you could answer, do you envision people testing multiple times in the evening, their drinks, or is it a one time thing? And then the second question I had was moving forward as 'how do you envision going forward when new drugs come around and they're not part of the, for lack of a better term, menu today of what's out there?'

We will--Senator, great questions. We will have to adjust as we go and learn as we go, and you're absolutely right. This will evolve, as we see, for example, in the fentanyl crisis. We see evolution in drug utilization, in drugging others, and so forth. As for your first question, I'm a father of three daughters, and they're not yet at the age where they're able to go out but I'm thinking about their future.

And as their dad, what I would do, aside from making sure that they have free Ubers to come home for them and their friends at any given time, is also to give them extra money and make sure that they have these test coasters available for all their drinks. Why? Not because of false sense of security. Because I want anybody who thinks they can roofie them to see that they have the test strips out, the test coasters and that they're testing their drink as a preventative measure. If we can cut down on 10 percent, that's a victory. Anything we can do.

I knew you couldn't help yourself.

I couldn't. I can't. I've got my cup here. You have the device there. So it's just a matter of just pouring a little bit on there. How does it work?

Literally, a drop in each one of these--these specific ones test for GHB and ketamine, which are the two drugs that are being utilized the most. This is what Bill Cosby was doing, by the way. Everyone. Allegedly. I'm comfortable saying that. And literally putting a drop or two of your drink on the coaster, and it will change color immediately. The tough thing about these drugs, Senator, is that they leave your body quickly.

They don't taste anything. They're clear. They're impossible to detect. The good thing about these drugs is once your drink has been spiked, they're easy to detect with these test trips.

Very good.

Thank you. Well, this is fascinating. So I went back east for a family event this weekend, and I was on a flight, and the woman sitting next to me, her and her husband have a condo in Florida next to a very famous bar. She went there one afternoon.

She was going to meet her husband there. Next thing she knows, she wakes up in a jail cell and so clearly drugged, and it's like, 'what are you guys doing about it?' I can't wait to text her and let her know about your bill and these things.

And she's an older woman, so, I mean, this can happen to anybody at any time and no one should not think that they can't be a victim because I think they can. So with that, the recommendation is, again, 'do pass,' and you may close.

Thank you, Senators. I want to reiterate that I have accepted the Committee amendments and like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for all their work on the bill and also to point out that this bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Assembly. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. All right, moving on to File Item Nine: AB 1023 by Assemblywoman Papan. Oh, Senator Min--did you say, Senator? Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize. I like the new haircut. So this is file item six, AB 781.

Thank you. I got my haircut to impress you, first off, and it worked.

Assemblyman Maienschein recommendation is due pass to Appropriations Committee, and with that floor is yours.

And I'm glad to hear that. And secondly, thank you, because, as you know, I am chair in the Judiciary Committee. I need to get back, so I will also be very brief.

AB 781 requires local governments to designate emergency shelters, warming centers, and cooling centers that are able to accommodate people with pets. The rate of natural disasters and extreme weather is rapidly increasing across California, causing significant risk to public health and community safety. AB 781 will help ensure a person never will be faced with the unfortunate choice of seeking safety or staying with their pet.

Thank you. Good morning, Vice Chair Wilk, Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on AB 781, which will enhance public safety and emergency preparedness across the state, while helping to ensure that no Californian be faced with the devastating decision between seeking safety and staying with our beloved pets.

Here to testify in support of AB 781 is Brittany Vanessi, the Senior Legislative Director for the ASPCA, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

As you may know, the ASPCA has a long history of supporting local governments in emergency response. Our field team has seen firsthand the role that pets play in people's decision makings during an evacuation and the benefits that planning for co sheltering where people can take and stay with or near their pets, has in reducing risk. Research has found that pet ownership is the highest risk factor for evacuation noncompliance, and it is estimated that 80% of people who reenter an evacuation site illegally do so to rescue a pet.

A recent survey of Californians found that 16% of the 16% of residents who plan to utilize an evacuation center 76% plan to bring their pet with them. And over half of all respondents reported that they would only evacuate if they could bring their pet. California's emergency management offices and animal services agencies recognize the benefits of co sheltering, with many having already integrated this into their emergency plans.

Many also have web pages dedicated to animal preparedness. However, the messaging is typically something along the lines of identify a hotel near you that is pet friendly. Identify friends or family that could take your pet, which is of course, prohibitive for those who cannot take on a sudden hotel expense nor have a local network.

Additionally, the rate of pet friendly warming and cooling centers varies widely across the state, with some counties offering 100% pet friendly cooling centers in recent heat waves, whereas others appear to have offered zero. AB 781 will help to ensure that when the next extreme heat wave, flood, wildfire, or whatever the universe chooses to throw at us next comes down, our communities will be better prepared, and Californians will know that seeking safety that they will be able to seek safety without having to choose between that safety and our pets. I want to thank Assembly Member Maienschein for his leadership on this issue and thank the committee for your time.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Great. Thank you.

This is Barbara Schmitz. I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA, and we support Assembly Bill 781. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room in support? Remember, senator Maienschein needs to get back to chair a meeting. Good morning.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa here this morning on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the county of Santa Clara in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, Nickolaus Sackett here for Social Compassion in legislation in support. Thank you. Good to see you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with the Humane Society of the United States and cow animals in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no others. Anyone in the room in opposition? Seeing none.

Moderator can we move to the phones again? File item six AB 781 by Assemblyman Maienschein.

Thank you. Please press 10. Again, it's 10. You can go to line number 32. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. So sad. And at w strategies on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you. And currently none further in queue.

Great. We're going to pull it back to committee with a reminder that the assemblyman has to chair committee. Senator Jones.

Go ahead. Two quick questions. I think, and I kind of agree with the premise.

My mom lives in Laughlin, Nevada, and it's going to be 115 there this week. She has a small dog. There's no way she would go without our dog.

So this weekend I moved her to Colorado so she can avoid that 115 degree temperatures in Laughlin. But two concerns. One, space is limited in these rescue shelter places and so the pet might be occupying a space that a person could have.

So the intent is that not everyone have to move from Laughlin to Colorado. And as somebody who I actually went through this situation twice.

And then the second concern is controlling the pet's behavior so that you're not getting into a dog versus cats or dog versus dog situation. How do you envision two situations?

As you know, when Rancho Bernardo had the fire in '07 and Scripps Ranch had the fire in 2003. And these were real choices that people were making. I mean, people literally were staying in their homes because they didn't want to leave their pet.

Many people consider their pet a family member. So there's that in trying to get them out. Then secondly, once they're in a shelter, they've just lost every single thing they own.

Everything they own is literally ashes. So having their pet there with them is some small way of helping. What we were able to do to avoid exactly what you were saying and we did this in the two times that I had to lead the rebuilding efforts after fires is we brought the ASPCA we brought the Humane Society there to assist with the exact issues that you were talking about.

So we did not have that problem where anyone ever was being displaced. And secondly, to your point about sort of any of these animals causing any sort of problem, we had trained people there on site to make sure none of that happened. Well, as a pet lover and as a district, that two thirds of it.

It's in wildfire country. I think this is a great idea and we'll support it when we eventually have a full committee, but you may close. Thank you very much.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. He does have a committee to chair, but go ahead.

Okay, very quickly, Assembly member. So, your definition of pets so I have a represent a very rural community, and so cat and dog doesn't cut it for us sometimes. How can you work to expand that definition to include other domesticated animals? I've done other things about having I've done another Bill that require local governments to have an evacuation plan.

You're talking about horses, I assume. Pigs, pigs, reptiles, birds. Yes.

I want to throw in alpaca. Alpacas. Okay, alpacas.

We haven't quite I'm kidding. She's serious. Drilled down.

We'll bring alpacas in. But no, what we have done is we have required in previous bills that I've done, we have required a plan which would take into account larger animals. Obviously, for the issue raised by Mr. Jones, you wouldn't have large animals in the same shelter as you would have human beings.

That would be possible. So we have addressed your very issue. We've done it in a separate Bill.

In a separate Bill. Okay. And then question in terms of quantity.

So in my house at any one time, I have four dogs and a pig, all domesticated. Would we be able to bring our whole family into a shelter, or is there a limit of how many pets you can?

Yeah, I mean, the Bill doesn't envision a limit. What I would say is typically what happens is you have the resources that are there, such as the Humane Society, ASPCA so in your case, because that's a little bit larger number of animals they would help assist with, maybe you'd keep one with you.

Again, we did this exact issue that was more of a case by case issue. Clearly, again, the pig wouldn't be there, but in terms of more sort of smaller, more domesticated animals, that's a little bit easier. But the resources are there with the Humane Society ASPCAs to take care of the larger, less domesticated animals.

So does your Bill allow for the counties to kind of make that decision and build into their plan? It does. Great. Thank you so much.

Anything else? Senator Archuleta? Your streak is going to be broken. All right, again, it's due pass to Appropriations Committee. You may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it, and I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you, sir.

I'm trying to share the wealth.

All right, now we're going to move to File Item Nine: Assemblywoman Papan: AB 1023, and the recommendation is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee,' and so whenever you're comfortable, please proceed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Nice to be with you. So this bill is about cybersecurity in schools. Inadequate cybersecurity presents a real serious threat because breaches have the potential to not only shut down operations, they can compromise sensitive student data and staff data. Equipping school districts and county offices of education with the tools to support and better defend against and respond to cyber attacks is of a critical aspect of school safety these days.

We've heard lots of stories about ransomware--becomes a very tricky proposition. So AB 23 is really a simple bill. It will include TK-12 schools in the California Cybersecurity Integration Center, or called Cal-CSIC, and Cal-CSIC coordinates cyber intelligence and information sharing with local, state, and federal agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions.

Importantly, academic institutions, though, typically refers to higher ed, postsecondary institutions. So what this bill does is explicitly includes TK-12 in our cyber defense and in the CSix services. So it's a very simple bill, and with me today I have testifying Ms. Erika Hoffman who is with the California School Boards Association.

Ms. Hoffman, you get two minutes, as you know. You know the drill.

Thank you--

I can do two minutes. This is easy. Maybe. Currently, there are over 1,000 school districts within California representing six million children, over 500,000 employees, 10,000 school sites. All organizations are vulnerable to cyber attacks, as you've all seen in the papers with regards to your local districts. This bill is just a very simple one.

It would specifically include K-12 within those entities that can receive information, share information, get more information in order to address cyber. A lot of districts don't have the staff that's highly trained in this. They're building it up. This is one more way, though, to make sure they're included in those conversations. So for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Excellent testimony. Anyone else in the room in support? Come on up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we strongly support the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others, let's move to opposition. Anyone in the room in opposition that'd like to testify? Seeing none, we're going to move to the phones. Mr. Moderator, again, this is Item Nine: AB 1023. And if we do have people testifying, it's now #MeToo testimony, so your name, organization, if you have one, and your position on the bill.

Thank you. And please press one zero at this time if so. Again, that's one zero. And currently nobody in queue.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Right now we will pull it back to Senator Archuleta for any questions, comments, or concerns.

Thank you very much. In one of my school districts, it's exactly what happened, and it was costly. It involved a lot of people. So I'm glad this bill is here because we need this across the State of California. Working with law enforcement, school districts, school police, everyone. And the cost--we just heard from the L.A. Unified School District. Imagine what it would do to that enormous, enormous group of people there. So I'm glad this is here, and I'll be happy to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

No one else? I had a similar situation with an elementary school, so, yeah, this is definitely an important issue. With that, seeing no questions, comments, or concerns, we'll look to you for a close.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote, and thank you for being so receptive to what perils do lie ahead if we don't do it.

Absolutely. Thank you, Assemblywoman. Okay. Looking, make sure--I don't want to call on her. No.

Okay. Up next, because she's here in the room, file item number 11, AB 1088 by Assemblywoman Rubio. And whenever you're comfortable, please proceed.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present AB 1088, which would extend direct-to-consumer shipping flexibilities for small craft distillers through 2024. In California, there are over 200 craft distillers, which on average employ five to ten individuals.

These are small businesses with substantial local footprints in each of our districts, which were critically impacted during the pandemic. In the months following the onset of the pandemic, the Legislature and the Administration were collectively able to provide a lifeline for these businesses through direct-to-consumer shipping, a flexibility already afforded to other stakeholders in the industry. AB 1088 continues our efforts to support this growing industry, as tasting rooms' visits are still down from the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is simply an extension, and I will repeat, it's simply an extension of flexibilities previously afforded to these craft distillers. And as such, this measure has no industry opposition. Here today as our primary witness is Nate Solov on behalf of the Artisanal Distillers Guild. Thank you, Senators. And with that.

All right, you have two minutes.

Chair and Members, Nate Solov on behalf of the California Artisanal Distillers Guild, over 200 craft distillers in the state. We just want to thank the author, the Chair, and Committee Members and staff for their help. You've helped keep this industry alive.

Over the last few years, their ability to do online sales and ship to consumers has allowed these 200 distilleries to keep their doors open, keep people employed. This is simply a one year extension of that privilege that you've already granted them. Appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Well done.

Anyone else in the room in support? Seeing none. Anyone in the room in opposition?

Hello, Senators. Fred Jones, again on behalf of California Council on Alcohol Problems. But we are a member of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, which is a bunch of organizations, including treatment facilities, local organizations, some of them micro, just one city that are concerned about certain bars and restaurants. So dozens of organizations throughout the state that are concerned about the inappropriate sale or consumption or marketing of alcohol. I just want to just briefly give a history, because this Bill, in a vacuum, sounds reasonable.

One year extension of what? Prior to 2015, there was no such scene as a craft distillery license. And then 2015, craft distillery license created, we're allowed to sell directly to consumers who were in their tasting rooms.

But then when COVID struck, there were no tasting rooms. So there was an exemption, an emergency exemption based on COVID, to allow them to sell directly to consumers through the mail. Again, not attached to a tasting room. So now we are going to extend this another year.

So we were concerned about the license, about this direct-to-consumer sales undermining tied-house restrictions. And this just continues to perpetuate it. And there'll likely be a Bill next year and maybe the year after that.

So for those policy reasons, we have to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the room? Come on up.

Mr. Chair, Members of the committee. Mike Scippa with Alcohol Justice. This Bill fundamentally undermines the three-tier system in allowing producers to also become distributors and retailers. The tied-house laws, the three-tier system is in place for very good reasons, many of which have to do with public health and safety.

In particular, direct-to-consumer sales make it nearly impossible to consistently engage in responsible beverage service practice. Delivery carriers have no RBS mandate, no ability to consistently identify and refuse service under dangerous circumstances, and both technical and economic pressures that reduce the ability to properly prevent delivery to underage recipients. For this reason, we are opposed to direct-to-consumer sales and to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we're going to move to the phones. We'll take yea and nay testimony at this point. It's just 'me, too.' So your name, organization, if you are part of one, and your position on the Bill. Mr. Moderator.

Thank you very much. And again, it is one-zero at this time. Please press one-zero. Giving it a moment. Nobody in queue currently.

All right, pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns.

Move the Bill when appropriate.

That was it? That was it. You're not going to say anything? You're going to break your streak?

Well, if you'd like me to. Let me go ahead and understand this.

I actually want you to because I'm not on script. Because are there any amendments to this Bill?

Yes.

No. Okay, good. So it's just do pass to Appropriations. You don't have to comment now since I'm on the but I'm already on the page.

Okay. Thank you for bringing this forward because I know the tapesters and distributors are working together and I hope that they do come together next year. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta, you're going to make a fine Congressman. Very excited about that. Okay. With that, we already have a Member who plans to move your Bill when appropriate, when we have a full committee and you may close.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very well done. Thank you. All right, who's in the room? No one's in the room. I'm open to having. A motion to adjourn. It's always in order, right? All right, staff, if you're watching and you have a Member that is yet to present, now would be a great time to come down. There we go. We've been graced by the presence of Assemblyman Gabriel. He's got two Bills up this morning.

Start with file item 13, AB 1185. Does that work for you? That does. Thank you, sir.

Okay, great. Floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

I want to start today by thanking the Committee of Staff for their assistance on this Bill. And I am pleased today to present AB 1185, which will further strengthen the California State nonprofit security grant program. This program has funded critical security enhancements at religious institutions, LGBTQ community centers, reproductive health facilities, and other nonprofits deemed to be at risk from violent extremism.

It has become the Office of Emergency Services most popular grant program. But sadly, the interest and need for this funding only continues to grow. Recent hate motivated shootings in Los Angeles and San Francisco targeting the Jewish and API communities show us that our work is not complete.

These communities and many others like them are in serious need of communal security infrastructure. AB 1185 makes changes to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program based on feedback from our most important stakeholders and will remove barriers to this program so that all organizations who need such security, such critical security support, can apply. With me today to testify in support is Cliff Berg representing the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California.

Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have two minutes.

Thank you. And would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Cliff Berg here on behalf of JPAC, the Jewish Public Affairs Committee.

JPAC represents over 33 California statewide and regional Jewish organizations in California. Nonprofits. From the Jewish Federation of the Greater Bay Area to the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles to Jewish Family Services of San Diego, Los Angeles.

The Bay Area Hadassa ADL, AJC. The list goes on. We have been very pleased to work with the Senator Gabriel since he entered the Legislature.

And prior to his entry to the Legislature to establish the Nonprofit Security Grant program in California, we started slowly securing the first year $1 million in the state budget. It grew to $50 million last year. This year, the Legislature has seen fit to put $20 million in there.

JPAC works very closely with community organizations to ensure that the program reflects the needs of the nonprofit community. Unfortunately, we have an increasing tide of violence, hatred, antisemitism, and hate crimes directed at both the Jewish community, the non-Jewish community. This program benefits and something like 90% of the grants last year went to non-Jewish organizations from African American, Latino, LGBT, Christian churches, and Muslim mosques.

And working closely with our organizations, we have enacted the program in statute. This Bill updates some of the important needs of the community in terms of how the money can be used would urge your support. It's an extremely important program at this time.

Unfortunately, in our society with the constant threat that we have both aimed at the Jewish community, Muslim community and all ethnic minorities. That's why this Bill and the funding has been supported by all the ethnic caucuses in the Legislature. Urge your support.

Good morning. Chair and Member Samara Palko with the California Catholic Conference in support.

Mr. Chair and Members Taylor Jackson. On behalf of California Health Plus Advocates, we represent almost 1300 community clinics, including reproductive health centers in California. We're here in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the room and off position? Seeing none, we will transition to the phones. So, Mr. Moderator, queue up.

It's file item 13, AB 1185 by Snowman Gabriel. And at this point, anybody wanting to testify, name organization if you have one and your position on the Bill. Thank

you, and again, for AB 1185, please press 10 at this time, again, 10 currently none in queue. Thank

you so much, appreciate that. Pull it back to the committee. Well, I'll make a quick comment.

So, again, I wasn't in California, but I was back east this weekend. Relatives bought mitzvah and I was horrified at the amount of security we had to go through. No one should have to endure that, but I guess it's a reality nowadays.

So I think this is a great measure and I know it supports support. And you may close. Yeah,

thank you very much. Appreciate those kind comments. It is a very difficult and complicated moment.

I remember growing up, going to synagogue, there was never security, and now on a weekly basis, when I walk my kids into the preschool, our synagogue, they go through a metal detector. So it's a very complicated world we're living in. As our witness mentioned, this is a program that has supported organizations for people from all faiths and backgrounds across California.

Unfortunately, so many of our communities are under threat, and this is going to help, hopefully help to strengthen that program and make sure that we can do everything we can to protect those at risk. So appreciate the support and would respectfully request an aye vote. Okay,

great, thank you. And we will approve that once we have a full committee. Now we'll move on to file item 14, AB 1217.

This measure has a 'do pass to Health Committee' and whenever you're ready.

Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. Also pleased today to present AB 1217 will support California's restaurants that have been impacted by COVID-19 and inflation by helping to preserve outdoor dining across our state. Neighborhood restaurants are the backbone of communities across California, contributing greatly to cultural affairs and the local economy, while also serving as an engine of economic opportunity and social mobility.

Over the course of the Pandemic, outdoor dining proved to be a critical lifeline to help struggling neighborhood restaurants. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 61 which provided restaurants with initial regulatory flexibility during COVID to foster outdoor food service and empower restaurants to use their own spaces for increased outdoor dining capacity. Restaurants that have survived the Pandemic continue to struggle with rising operating costs due to inflation, as well as all of the challenges that they are still facing as a result of the Pandemic.

In short, California's restaurants are still in need of regulatory flexibility to help them recover from economic losses associated with the Pandemic. AB 1217 will preserve existing regulatory flexibility related to outdoor patio and al fresco dining by extending the current temporary catering authorization that allows restaurants to serve guests in expanded outdoor dining areas. In so doing, this bill will help to keep our beloved neighborhood restaurants afloat and assist them on the long road back to economic recovery.

This bill is supported by a coalition of small businesses, local restaurants and hospitality coalitions, business councils, and chambers of commerce from across the state. Here with me today is Matthew Sutton on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. Thank you, and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. Sutton, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Sutton of the California Restaurant Association. I want to thank the Assembly Member for his leadership on this issue. You've seen this issue before.

It's an extension of existing law and what it does, basically, is it does two things. We're talking about restaurant dining spaces that are outdoor, that are not necessarily on premise or contiguous to the restaurant so it's some of these expanded areas that you have in your communities and what it does is it creates--if you're permitted inside the physical restaurant, this basically allows some of the same activity in those extended spaces, whether they be parklets or otherwise and that includes alcohol service, and it also includes limited food preparation.

So what we're talking about, essentially, is allowing what's allowed in the restaurant to take place in some of these noncontiguous spaces. ABC is currently working on a regulatory framework to provide further guidance for these kinds of spaces, but as it is now and as it has been for the last few years, the program is highly successful.

There's about 11,000 restaurants that currently benefit from it. More will be able to if this law moves forward, and without this extension, the law will expire early in 2024. So we would ask for your continued support, and we would point out that public safety protocols and protections and guardrails have been added to this program over the last few years, and it remains highly successful. So thank you, and we'd ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support? Please come forward.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, also in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. Melissa Hyzdu on behalf of the California Travel Association. In support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the room in opposition? Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Mike Scippa on behalf of Alcohol Justice. As the public health interventions in response to COVID wind down, so too should exemptions to rules that were meant to promote public safety, including the expanded footprints for alcohol licenses.

The expanded footprints allowed by ABC and then extended under temporary order by the Governor were intended to allow restaurants to operate without forcing customers to gather inside. However, they were extended well beyond and well past the lockdown orders, vastly increasing the footprint of nearly any of the venues who were interested in doing so. This formed just one part of a constellation of alcohol deregulatory measures that have had a measurable, lethal impact on the residents of our state.

According to the current CDC numbers, alcohol-related deaths in California rose 15.9 percent from 2019 to 2020; 17.7 percent from 2020 to 2021. This is a stunning spike in a state that has already experienced increases in alcohol-related deaths out of proportion to population growth. This mortality disproportionately affects young California residents with more than one in four deaths among 20 to 34-year-olds.

Drinking outdoors does not cause this mortality. However, increasing the density of people drinking in any given area does. Extending those privileges outside the confines of a restaurant clearly increases the risk of public health and safety and fatalities in the state. We ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next.

Senators and Assemblymen, Fred Jones on behalf of my client, California Alcohol Policy Alliance. Bottom line is, COVID is over, at least as it relates to bars and restaurants. All of you, if you've eaten out recently or gone to a bar, they are back. They're back, and not just because of extended footprints.

The concern we have with this bill, as Michael just alluded to, is this is really aimed at permanently changing laws that are supposed to protect communities and individuals because when 2026 arrives, which is when this bill would sunset, there will have been six years of bars and restaurants investing in these extended footprints, and as the representative from the Restaurant Association just testified, if this bill passes, there will be more bars and restaurants that take advantage of this extended footprint and invest more in their infrastructure.

And so can you really look me in the eye and say that in 2026 you won't extend this another two years or maybe permanently? So the question is, were the laws before COVID responsible or not because this bill is intended to permanently alter those laws. So for those reasons, we have to respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir. Anyone else in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we will move to the phones. Again, this is File Item 14: AB 1217. At this point is simply #MeToo testimony, so your name, organization, if you have one, and your position on the bill. Moderator.

Thank you very much. Again, it is one zero at this time. Please press one zero. And currently nobody in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. Pull it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, Assemblyman, you may close.

Yeah, just would add, I think small businesses are the backbone of communities across California. Neighborhood restaurants contribute so much to all of our--the vibrancy of all of our jurisdictions. These folks are really struggling.

Many of them made major, major investments in outdoor dining during COVID. They're still trying to recoup those investments, and even though the pandemic may be over in one sense, they're still working really hard to come out of that situation, which was very, very challenging for them.

And I know Chairman Dodd was a leader in trying to support our small businesses and provide for the vibrancy in communities across the state and we think this is something we've heard from them that they desperately need and we ought to continue to give them that regulatory flexibility, particularly because restaurants are one of the most diverse workforces in the State of California and real engines of economic opportunity and social mobility. So with that, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. And with this, I return the gavel to our fearless leader--

Secretary, call the roll.

Oh, we finally get--no, we don't have a motion.

Oh, we're still not a quorum here?

No, we're not.

I thought you would have progress.

No, sorry.

No, we need your leadership to make that happen.

So we'll have a quorum at some point in time? Thank you very much for--

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Appreciate it. And thank you to the Vice Chair.

And thank you to the vice chair.

I thought you weren't coming back.

Item number twelve, AB 1163. Assembly Member Rivas. Good morning, and please feel free to begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking Brian for his work and thoughtful analysis on this Bill. I also want to accept the amendments proposed by the committee.

AB 1163 takes vital steps to reduce wellbeing disparities for LGBT communities. This Bill amends the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act to require additional state entities to collect voluntary selfidentification information pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2015, the US Transgender Survey issued the largest survey examining the experiences of transgender people in the United States.

The survey found that 33% of transgender people seeking health care services reported having negative experiences, including refusal of treatments, verbal harassment, and physical assault. That all stemmed from being misgendered. It's clear that the misgendering of Members of the LGBTQ plus community has prevented them from receiving the services that they need to survive and thrive.

With this Bill, the state will understand the scope and severity of the issues and the dangers facing this vulnerable population. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any lead witnesses in support. Seeing nobody in the room. Anybody else in support, please come forward. Thank you.

Umberg, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Annie Thomas. On behalf of the California Alliance of Children and Family Services. In support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none in the room. We're going to move to the phone lines. Moderator, anybody in support or opposition to AB 1163, they can testify now.

Please press 10 at this time. Again, it's 10. Give us just a moment here. We can go first to line number 39.

Good morning. On behalf of the California Latina Reproductive Justice, Veronica Villalobos is in support.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 29.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Currently none further in queue.

Okay, well, thank you. I'm going to turn back to our Members. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Obviously we don't have a quorum yet. Just wanted to see if you wanted to close.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote when you do vote. Thank you.

Thank you Assembly Member Rivas. Appreciate you being here. We're looking for Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia. Please come and present your Bill and any Members of the Geo Committee, this will be our last Bill. So we'll be doing the role.

No, we won't. Not if they don't come.

And this is all for not.

I know.

We gotta have a rule. He's having too much fun with that gavel.

Secretary, please call the role.

Dodd.

Here.

Dodd here. Wilk.

Present.

Wilk present. Alvarado-Gil.

Here.

Alvarado-Gil here. Archuleta.

Here.

Archuleta here. Ashby.

Here.

Ashby here. Bradford.

Here.

Bradford here. Glazer. Jones.

I'm here.

Jones here. Nguyen.

Here.

Nguyen here. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla. Portantino. Roth.

Here.

Roth here. Rubio. Seyarto.

Okay. Madam Secretary. Can we call the role on the consent?

So moved by Wilk.

Got to like that. It's been moved by Wilk. Call the roll, please.

Dodd?

Aye.

Dodd aye. Wilk.

Aye.

Wilk aye. Alvarado-Gil.

Aye.

Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta.

Aye.

Archuleta aye. Ashby.

Aye.

Ashby aye. Bradford.

Aye.

Bradford aye. Glazer. Jones.

Aye.

Jones aye. Nguyen.

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla. Portantino. Roth.

Aye.

Roth aye. Rubio. Seyarto. Nine.

That Bill has nine. We'll leave the role open. Say we'll go to file item. Senator, do you want to present Assembly Member Garcia's Bill, please?

Good work. I got all these consultants up here telling me what to do.

Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm happy to present AB 1403 on behalf of Assembly Member Garcia. It will allow the office of the State Fire Marshal to identify methods that will capture more detailed data relating to fires, damages and injuries caused by the most dangerous fireworks and safe, insane fireworks. The Bill ensures that local nonprofits in our communities who are selling safe and sane fireworks are given funds that will be used for public awareness campaigns regarding the safe and responsible use of safe and sane fireworks, and the dangers and risks posed by the use of illegal fireworks.

With me today. I have Jason Gonsalves representing TNT fireworks. Following his testimony, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Two minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Jason Gonsalves, representing TNT fireworks as well as the cities of Norwalk and El Grove and strong support this Bill is part of a multi-pronged approach and multi year approach to try to tackle the illegal fireworks and give the office, State Fire Marshal and others the tools necessary to go after the illegal fireworks in this state.

None further in queue at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, Evan Corder on behalf of Phantom Fireworks in support.

Piggybacking on Senator Archuletta's legislation from last year. So we appreciate the committee's continued support of this effort and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Moderator we're going to go to the phone lines for support or opposition for AB 14 three.

Thank you again, please press 10 at this time. Currently nobody in queue. I'm sorry. Give me just a moment. We do have one party in queue. I'm just going to go on to his. All right, we'll go to line number 40. Please, go ahead.

Bring it back to our Members. Senator Archelatta?

Yes. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward on behalf of Assembly Member Garcia. Last year we presented a Bill that fire marshal was looking into destroying the illegal fireworks that we obtained. Now we're looking at a broader look and communities all over the state of California, especially when we had the fires to look back into. This is opening the door to research data and give us all a look at what we're facing when it comes to illegal fireworks.

I know safe and sane in a lot of communities as we approach 4 July is a great thing for a lot of the fundraising for the boy scouts and veterans and so on. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about illegal fireworks and eventually we'll enhance the laws to make sure that we can stop that type of action.

And I thank Assembly Member Garcia for bringing this forward and I will make a motion at the appropriate time. Make the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I have a question. When we're talking about safe and sane, are we talking about those fire up in the air? Here's why. Culturally in the Asian American community during lunar new year, they always have those little red firecrackers.

Are those part of this are we talking about? I'm just trying to understand what we're talking about. And children likes to have those little poppers throughout the year as well. So what kind of fireworks are we talking about?

It is my understanding that there are standards both at the regional, local permitting level that address specifically how that's viewed. There are also statewide guidelines, but I'll let the witness address that directly.

Thank you, Senator Padilla, and thank you, Senator Nguyen. We're talking about safe and sane fireworks that are limited to 12ft from the ground. So not the aerials that you see in the air that unfortunately we see too frequently, especially around 4 July.

So you're talking about just those that are lit it on the ground.

On the ground up to 12ft.

So that also includes the red firecrackers during Lunar New Year.

There's firecrackers, or poppers, if you will, but not the, there are illegal ones that have too much gunpowder in them. So are illegal firecrackers, as we call them.

Okay, so you're talking about those other ones that can fly and they can manipulate and it shoots off. We're not talking about the little firecrackers and the poppers?

No, Senator, not the poppers that you can get at retail outlets throughout the year. Some are legal throughout the year, safe and saying fireworks. You have about a week's period of time to sell in anticipation of 4 July.

Perfect. Thank you.

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, set to call the roll, please. We have a motion from Senator Archuletta.

AB 1403. Motion is due pass to Environmental Quality Committee. [Roll call vote]

Twelve? It's got twelve. We'll keep the file open. Now we're going to move to file item number one.

Excuse me, that's consent. Okay? AB 38 by Assembly Member Lee?

Let's do consent since we have there's.

Do the consent first. Okay, so we're going to lift a call on consent.

We should just defer to you guys on the website.

Okay, we're going to move and open the roll for the consent calendar.

Absent Members Ochoa Bogh.

Absent Members. [Roll call vote].

Bill has 13 votes. We'll leave the roll open. We'll move now to file item number two, AB 38, Assembly Member Lee, we need a motion.

Wilk motions it because I said I would.

Okay, so the motion by Wilk, please call the roll.

Motion is due pass as motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. This is AB 38. [Roll call vote] Eight to two.

Eight to two? Is that what you said? Okay, so we'll keep that open. We'll now move to file item number two, AB 835 by Assembly Member Lee. Archuleta. Archuleta moves. Secretary, please open the roll.

AB 835. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll call vote] Thirteen.

The Bill has 13 votes. We'll keep the roll open, move down to file item number four, AB 302 by Assembly Member Ward. Archuleta moves, please open the roll.

Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call vote]

Bill has 13 votes. We'll put that on call. We'll now move to file item number six, AB 781 by Assembly Member Maienschein.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll call vote] That's thirteen.

And you get down that Senator Wilk made the motion.

No, it was me, not Archuleta on that one.

Just for clarity sake, we'll now move on to file item number nine, AB 1023.

Let's do item eight. And we need a motion.

I don't even have item eight. Hold a second. Okay, we'll go file item number eight.

File item eight, AB 1013. Motion is due pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call vote] That's 13.

Thirteen votes. We'll hold that open. We'll now move to pilot number nine, AB 1023 by Assembly Member Pappin, moved by Archuleta. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. Committee. [Roll call vote]

Bill has 13. Bill has 13 votes. We'll hold that on call. We'll now move to file item, are we at 11? AB 1088 by Assembly Member Rubio. The motion was made by?

Motion is due passed to appropriations. Committee. [Roll call vote] Thirteen.

I'm going to make it right now.

Wilk. Call the roll.

Bill has thirteen. Keep that on call. Now we'll move to file item number 12 1163 by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Do we have a motion? Somebody want to make.. Senator Roth? Please open the roll.

Motion is due pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call vote]

Bill has eight votes. We'll put that on call. Now move to item number 13, AB 1185 by Assembly Member Gabriel. Wilk moves. Please open the roll.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. Committee. [Roll call vote]

Bill has thirteen votes. We'll hold that open. We'll now move to file item number 14, AB 1217 by Assembly Member Gabriel. Do we have a motion? Motion Archuleta. Please open the roll.

Motion is due passed to Health committee. [Roll call vote]

Bill has thirteen. We'll hold that open. Now we'll move to file item number 17, AB 1403 by Assembly Member Garcia. Do we have a motion for this? Yes. Motion, Archuleta. Okay. Who is the motion? Okay, we're on call, so go ahead, please.

This one's due pass to Environmental Quality Committee absent Members. Ochoa Bogh. [Roll call vote]

I believe that has 13. Are we expecting Rubio here? Okay. Thanks for the assistance, as usual.

Okay, we're going to open the roll, so let's start with the consent. Open the roll, please.

Consent calendar absent members. [Roll call]

Bill has 14, we'll leave that on call. So we'll move to file item number one: AB 38 by Assembly Member Lee. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] That's nine to two.

Bill has nine. We'll leave that open. File item number two: AB 835. Assembly Member Lee, open the roll.

[Roll call]

That's 14 votes. We'll leave that open. File item number four: AB 302.

[Roll call]

That's nine votes. We'll leave that open. 14 votes, excuse me. Right. Okay, item number 6: 781, please open the roll.

[Roll call]

That's 14. Leave that open. File item number nine: AB 1023. Assembly Member Papan.

Eight.

Yeah, I missed eight again. Let's start with eight. It's got 13 votes. Please call the roll.

[Roll call] 14-0.

It's got 14. Put that on call. File item number 9: 1023

[Roll call]

Bill has 14. We'll now move to file item number eleven: AB 1088. Open the roll, please.

[Roll call]

Bill has 14 votes. File item number twelve. Assembly Member Rivas. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll now move to file item number 13: AB 1185. Please open the roll.

[Roll call]

Bill has 14 votes. We'll leave it open. We'll now move to item number 14: AB 1217. Open the roll.

[Roll call]

Bill has 14. We'll leave that open. We'll move to file item number 17: 1403 by Garcia. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll call]

Bill still has 13. We'll leave that.

Okay, we're going to lift the calls. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Secretary, open the roll. Rubio

[Roll call] 14-0. 15-0. Sorry.

15-0. That Bill is out. We'll move to file item number one: AB 38 by Assembly Member Lee. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 10-2.

That Bill is out. 10-2. File item number two: AB 835 by Assembly Member Lee. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll call] 15-0

That Bill is out. 15-0. File item number four: AB 302 by Assembly Member Ward.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File number six: AB 781. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 15-0

Bill's out. 15-0. File item number nine: AB 1023. I did it again. That's number eight. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File item number nine: AB 1023.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File item number eleven: AB 1088. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File item number twelve: AB 1163. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] It's 10-0.

10-0. That bill is out. File item number 13: AB 1185. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File item number 14: AB 1217.

[Roll call] 15-0.

15-0. That Bill is out. File item number 17: AB 1403. Please open the roll.

[Roll call] 14-0.

14-0. That Bill is out. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Governmental Organization Committee is adjourned.