Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. We are holding this Committee hearing in room 112 of the old capitol. This is not our usual location, so those of you who are listening, who are on this Committee, you need to make your way across the street to the Capitol. Room 112. We don't have a quorum, but we are going to begin as a Subcommitee.

We're starting today at 930 here in the old capitol, and we're going to take a break at some point around noon, and then we'll come back and hear the rest of our agenda. The following items have been pulled from today's agenda. File number 13, SB 1250 by Senator Nguyen. File number 32, SB 1076 by Senator Wilk. File number 38, SB 1154 by Senator Hurtado, will not be voted on by the Committee today.

The author will present the bill, and any witnesses may come forward and speak, but there will not, let me underline, not be a vote on that bill. File number 39, SB 1424 by Senator Glazer, which failed passage in the Committee last week, but was granted reconsideration, will not have a presentation by the author, but will be voted on by the Committee. Now, let's turn to the consent calendar. Let me read the 13 bills that are on consent today. File number one, SB 1476 by Senator Blakespear.

File number three, SB 1162 by Senator Cortese. File number nine, SB 1270 by Senator Grove. File number 10, SB 1521 by the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee. File number 12, SB 1202 by Senator Newman, with amendments. File number 18, SB 963 by Senator Ashby, with amendments. File number 20, SB 1000 by Senator Ashby, with amendments. File number 21, SB 1452 by Senator Ashby. File number 22, SB 1454, by Senator Ashby. File number 28, SB 1394 by Senator Min.

File number 33, SB 1194 by our very own Senator Wilk, and file item number 34, SB 901 by Senator Umberg. And finally, file item number 37, SB 1525 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. All right, we'll take up the consent calendar when we have a quorum. So we have, once again, we have 50% of the Republicans who participate on this Committee present, and we have less than 30% of the Democrats. So if we could get a few more members, we would have a quorum.

But as I mentioned at the outset, we're going to proceed as a subcommitee. And first up, we have file item number two, SB 1109, by Senator Bradford, who is present. Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Committee Members, and I honored to present 1109. This just is going to require the Department of Canada's control to collect and report demographic information on cannabis licensees. The information provided is voluntary by the licensees. Current law of the Department requires the Department to collect the names of all individuals who hold financial interests in a cannabis business. However, little is known about the demographic composition of these individuals.

In recent years, the legislation has focused on ensuring that California's cannabis market is inclusive and supportive of individuals impacted by the war on drugs as attendant when the voters pass Prop 64. Unfortunately, we are far from achieving that goal. Currently, this industry is 85% white male dominated, and we need greater diversity. So this will help us establish that many people are experiencing difficulty in entering this market and. And continues to lack the diversity that we all would hope for.

That represents not only California, but this nation. California has a responsibility to make sure that our cannabis industry is equitable and fair to all. SB 1109 will help us reach that goal, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Bradford. We're going to take witnesses and support and opposition here in just a second. Let me announce the rules. The rules will apply to every bill today. So each author, each bill will have two primary witnesses in support. Each of those witnesses will be allotted two minutes, and then we'll hear from others who wish to testify in support. They give their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill. Let me repeat that. Their name, their affiliation, their position on the bill.

Then we'll turn to the opposition. The opposition will have the same two witnesses, each with two minutes each. And then the opposition, folks who wish to testify in what we call me too fashion, then they may give their name, their affiliation, and their position. After that, we'll turn to the Committee for questions and comments. All right, so if you are in support, Mister Bradford. Senator Bradford, do you have any witnesses in support of SB 1109?

I don't know if anyone's here today.

Okay. All right, so we'll rely on you. All right. If you're in support of SB 1109, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone. If you're in opposition to SB 1109, please approach the microphone. We have one person wishes to testify in opposition to SB 1109. Go ahead, sir. Did you wish to testify in opposition? No. All right. If there's anyone else here who wish to testify in opposition, he's in support. In support? All right, go ahead, sir. We'll take support. Now.

My name is Jared Kylo, here on behalf of United Cannabis Business Associations with 200 cannabis retailers and firm support.

All right, thank you. Anyone else in support? Or opposition. Please approach microphone. Seeing no one. All right, let's turn to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Yes, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. No questions. I just want to recognize the author for being persistent in this area. The whole idea, once cannabis was legalized, was to make sure that there was an opportunity for people of color to enter the market, given that they bore the brunt of the arrests and incarceration for the drug. And so I support you, and when we get a quorum, I'll move the bill.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Senator Bradford, would you like to close again?

This is a straightforward measure that just making sure that everyone is represented in this space, in this opportunity, and we just lost a great advocate, the first and only African American CEO of a cannabis company, Troy Dasher, who was truly committed to diversity in this issue. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. At appropriate time, Senator Caballero will move the bill. All right, thank you. Next we have Senator Cortese. Then we'll have Senator Eggman. Senator Cortese, item number four, SB 1299.

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 1299, the bill sponsored by the United Farm Workers. The increased frequency of extreme heat conditions and its growing risk to workers, highlight the importance and necessity of employer compliance with California's outdoor heat regulations to keep workers safe. SB 1299 promotes compliance with the existing outdoor heat regulation through a rebuttable presumption for heat related injury and death.

Farm workers who suffer injury, illness or death while working for a non compliant employer will be treated and compensated expeditiously. The bill also establishes the Farm Worker Climate Change Heat Injury and Death Fund. To offset DIR's administrative costs. The new fund will be funded on a one time basis from the existing workers Comp Administration Revolving Fund. Some of the largest agricultural counties in the state are experiencing record breaking heat waves. In 2022, King City in Monterey County broke its hottest temperature ever recorded at 116 degrees.

Fresno recorded an all time high at 114. Stockton in San Joaquin county shattered its 1988 record of 106 by reaching 112 degrees. These record breaking heat waves are harming the health of agricultural workers. From 2018 to 2019, the number of suspected and confirmed farm worker heat related deaths increased exponentially. With us today to testify, we have Martha Montiel, a farmworker representing the United Farm Workers, and Anne Katten. Is Anne here? Are you the interpreter? Excuse me, Mister Chair.

Anne Katten, Director of pesticide and worker Safety Project and legislative advocate for the California Rural League Assistance foundation. Thank you. And at the appropriate time. And ask for your aye vote. I think I was just clarifying that the witness needs her interpreter. I don't know how the chair wants to handle that.

All right, we'll figure that out. All right, thank you, Senator Cortese. Two witnesses, two minutes each. Ma'am, the floor is yours. Go ahead. And if you're speaking in Spanish and someone's going to, you're going to speak in Spanish, you're going to translate. All right, let's do it this way. Let's stop every, you know, 15 seconds or so so that we can understand. All right, go ahead.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Marta Montiel. Soy un trabajador agricola miembro de la Union de la fundacion de la Union de Campesinos. Apoyamos la SB 1299. No estoy aqui para pedir mas beneficios para los trabajadores agricolas. No etoy aqui para pedir cambios en la regulaciones estatales de la calor. Cada vez hace mas calor, el calor enferma a los trabajadores agricolas. El calor ha matado a muchos de nosotros.

Good morning. My name is Marta Monteel. I'm a farm worker and member of UFW foundation, and we are in support of SB 1299. I'm not here to ask for more benefits for farmworkers. I'm not here to ask for changes to this state outdoor heat regulations. It is getting hotter. Heat makes farmworkers sick. Heat has killed too many of us.

El Estado, perdon, el Estado nos dio nombres de los treintas trabajadores agricolas que murieron en 2019. Cuando el Estado investigo estas muertas, describio que trece de los empleadores de estos treinta trabajadores agricolas muertos violaban la regulaciones de la calor. California no lleva un registro de cuantos trabajadores son admitidos en el hospital debido a los golpes de calor o otras enfermedades de debido al golpe de calor.

The state gave us the name of 30 found workers who died in 2019. When the state looked into these deaths, they found out 13 of the employers of those 30 dead found workers were in violation of the heat regulation. California does not keep track of how many workers are admitted to the hospital because of heat stroke or other heat illness.

En el verano de 2021, tuve una experiencia impactante cuando estaba trabajando en los campos de uva y hacia calor mas de cien. Mi colega empezo a sentirse mareado y casi perdio el conocimiento porque no habia acerca agua ni sombra. Se lo dijimos al mayordomo, pero el no quiso asumir la responsibilidad y nos dijo que podiamos llevarla a casa o al medico. Esta falta de respuesta y plan por parte de los empleadores es la norma.

In the summer of 2021, I had an impactful experience when I was working in the grain fields. It was over 100 degrees. My colleagues started feeling dizzy and almost became unconscious because there wasn't water nearby, there wasn't shade.

We told the crew leader, but he didn't want to take responsibility and told us that we could take her to the house or doctor's office. This lack of response and plan by employers is the norm.

La lucha contra el cambio climatico no se tratas de coches electricos, tambien se trata de cosas simples como agua potable, fria sombre, y descanso. No es demasiado pedir cuando sabes que estas cosas realmente salvan vidas. Gracias.

Fighting climate change is not just about electric cars. It's also about simple things. Cool drinking water, shade, rest breaks. That's not too much to us when, you know, these things really do save lives. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, next witness in support. You can stay here if you want to. It'll work. Go ahead. Just go ahead and start speaking.

Good morning, Chair Umberg and Committee Members. I'm Anne Katten, work health and safety specialist with California Rural Legal Assistance foundation. We strongly support SB 1299 because, by incentive, compliance with the heat illness and injury prevention regulation, it will save lives and prevent debilitating injury and illness you've just heard about. The way the process would work is as follows. A farm worker suffers a heat injury, illness or death while employed doing agricultural work. The worker or deceased worker's family files a workers comp claim.

If the claim is contested, it is reviewed by the Workers Comp Appeals Board, whose judges routinely evaluate evidence of safety regulation compliance in workers compensation cases. If the evidence demonstrate that the employer was not in compliance with the heat illness prevention standard, the injury or fatality becomes eligible for the rebuttable presumption under SB 1299. If there's no evidence of violation of the heat regulation at the time of injury or death, SB 1299 simply does not apply, but the case may still be ruled compensable.

The workers Comp Appeals Board will rule based on evidence, including on whether there was failure to comply with the heat regulation. SB 1299 does not change the existing outdoor heat regulation does not apply to employers who are in compliance with the heat illness prevention regulation, does not create any additional workers comp benefit level, does not impose a penalty on employers. Thank you for your consideration. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Those in support of SB 1299, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Elmer Lazardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you.

Jassy Grewal with UFCW Western States Council in support.

Thank you. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1299, let me ask the witnesses who were in support to return back to the audience, and if you're in opposition, to go ahead and take a seat. For witnesses who wish to testify in support or opposition, it's your choice as to whether you want to sit here at the tables or whether you want to testify from the microphone.

That's to my left. To your right. All right, sir, floor is yours. Thank you.

Mister chair Members, my name is Jason Schmeltzer, and today I'm here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation and the California Chamber of Commerce. I do want to observe broadly about presumptions. Presumptions serve a very specific purpose in the workers compensation system.

And that is because even though California has a no fault system and judges are legally required to interpret the law in the direction of providing benefits, there are some types of injuries, when combined with the occupation, that make it extremely difficult for injured workers to meet sort of their low bar of proof or compensability. A few examples. Law enforcement and heart disease. We don't know precisely how stress and other factors of the job lead to heart disease, but we do know that it does.

Therefore, presumption, we sort of shift the burden to the employer. Same is true with firefighters and cancers. We can't draw a straight line for each firefighter to specific fires and specific exposures, but we do know that they're exposed to carcinogens their entire career. Therefore, presumption. Presumptions are granted because without them, it would be frequently impossible for a legitimately injured worker to demonstrate workplace causation and access the workers compensation system. Presumptions are about the workers compensation system.

What I'm hearing in this Bill is a lot of concern about the regulatory process on Cal OSCA. 1299 doesn't really fit into the presumption scenario I just outlined. In most cases, there's going to be very little mystery surrounding how and where a farm worker began suffering from heat illness. From our perspective, a presumption isn't needed or appropriate here. Consider a few details.

In order to trigger the presumption in SB 1299, a worker must show, one, that the employer was out of compliance with the heat illness regulations, and two, that their claimed heat illness is resulting from that lack of compliance. Once you've established those two things, there's no need for a presumption because you've established industrial causation and therefore have access to of the workers compensation system. So even in statutory construction, it doesn't sort of speak the workers compensation language.

The bill is also unclear about what evidence must be presented to establish that an employer was out of compliance with the regulation.

You would wrap up? Thank you.

Absolutely. Or what this means. Finally, concern about the WCAB being the appropriate venue for the system. The Cal OSHA system has its own Appeals Board with its own rich history.

And I assume you oppose? You urge no vote? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name's Laura Curtis. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, and while we are very sympathetic to this issue, and we, too, want to reduce the risk of heat exposure and illness. We are respectfully opposed because we don't feel that SB 1299 is the right solution. We align our comments with CCWC, but I would like to underscore two issues with the bill.

First, as the Legislature and Administration have recognized many times, presumptions should be established sparingly. Just last year, Governor Newsom vetoed a number of bills on presumptions, saying that presumptions must be based on clear and compelling evidence. However, the proponents of this bill have not shown data showing that he illness claims are being denied, nor have they shown a fault within the workers compensation system. Without this clear and compelling evidence, this bill fails to pass the standards that this Legislature and the Administration have set for presumptions.

Second, injury is defined in the bill as any heat related injury, illness, or death that develops or manifests after the employee was working outdoors or within the pay period in which the employee suffers any heat related illness, injury, or death. So there is no real limit on the timeframe as to what constitutes after working outdoors. For the majority of agricultural employees, a one week pay period is common. However, for others, such as dairy farmers, a one month pay period is not uncommon.

The injury must develop or manifest within a week or a month after working outdoors and could include, for example, returning home, working out, doing manual labor in one's own yard, or playing sports in the extreme heat. And while the bill says that it is a rebuttable presumption, this presumption is technically rebuttable. But a review of Section 3395 shows that there are 73 individual standards that could trigger this presumption in SB 1299.

And presumptions are rarely rebutted because the virtual impossibility of proving a negative renders the presumption functionally conclusive. Thus, SB 1299's definition of injury would arguably create a presumption of coverage for an employee who suffers a heat related injury illness a week to a month after working, and such precedent could upend the workers compensation system. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote on SB 1299. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition, please apply. Approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senator. I'm Carlos Guterres, on behalf of the Western Ag Processor Association, California Fresh Food Association, and California Cotton Ginners Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, several other agricultural organizations, as well as the Family Business Association, of California in opposition as well. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Brady Van England, California Chamber of Commerce, you're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members. Yes, Senator Caballero.

So let me just say. Well, thank Senator Cortese for bringing this bill forward. What I hear the opposition saying is that it's the wrong entities that are overseeing this and that the presumption is not necessary because there's already that causal relationship. Let me just say that we can look at all of that. The issue is, do I think we need to protect workers, in this instance, farmworkers, from the heat that is a result of climate change? And the answer has to be absolutely yes.

When I worked for Governor Brown, if the indoor heat reached 80 degrees or higher, every employee was sent home because it was too hot to be in a building. And if it's too hot at 80 degrees, 82, whatever the number is, then how can we not have protections in place that will provide a life saving opportunity for people that are working outdoors? And that's the responsibility of the employer, and that's the responsibility of the mayordomos or the crew leaders. And in my mind, it's a minimum.

So I'm going to support your bill. We don't have a quorum here today, but I just wanted to say to that I really appreciate the finesse that you've used in this instance, because you're not asking for more, you're just asking for enforcement. And the way you enforce it is by saying, look, you gotta, if you don't have cool water, shade, an opportunity to get in out of the sun and rest, then there's a problem. And so I appreciate that very much.

Alrighty. Thank you. No other questions? Comments? Seeing none, Senator Cortese, at the appropriate time, I believe Senator Caballero will move the Bill.

I will.

And we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Really, I'd just like to thank the Committee consultants for a tremendous job on the analysis. We gained a lot of information I did as an author. In terms of recent examples of excellent statistics, well, they're not excellent in terms of the outcome on the workers, but excellent in terms of us making the case and supporting the cause for this bill. And that work is appreciated. It's a very deep dive, and I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes thank you, Mister Chair.

All right, thank you. I believe it's Ian Doherty, as a matter of fact, who did the analysis, and we're all blessed by having such a wonderful judiciary staff. So thanks. Yeah.

Excellent job.

All right. Okay, next we have Senator Eggman, who's present. And then after Senator Eggman, we have Senator Glazer times three. So, Senator Eggman, item number five, SB 1051.

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for hearing me today. This talking about protections for victims of domestic violence and assault and things like that, and for their families as well. We know one of the number one reasons women find themselves out of housing, couch surfing, and on the run is because they're not safe at home.

And so the State of California has extended a lot of laws to say that the women need to have protection to get out of leases for different kinds of things around abuse. This will then apply to being able to have one's locks changed. For people who don't want to leave, who don't want to have to break their lease early, should have another option for safety. And so this just says that with documentation, they're able to get their locks changed.

Family members also, where that person may be going, where that perpetrator may have had access to a key before, they may also get their locks changed. And that utilizing this protection should not then prejudice them going to find another apartment or being held against them. With me here today is Taylor? Taylor or Rickie? Taylor and Rickie. Taylor and Rickie. Okay.

Alrighty. Thank you. Floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Rickie Brown, and I'm a member of the San Diego chapter of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. Our flagship program, Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, represents a network of tens of thousands of survivors across California, including family members who have lost loved ones to violence and who often did not receive the care they deserved in the aftermath. I'm here speaking in favor of SB 1051.

I came to be a member of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice due to the murder of my son, but specifically for this bill, I'm a property manager who has experience with pieces of this legislation. As a property manager, I just mentioned one of my residents, a female, was a victim of domestic violence. She called the office requesting that we change her locks, but because she didn't have the proper documentation, we couldn't grant her request.

SB 1051 will make sure survivors and family members of direct victims of violence can have their locks changed. Currently, only survivors of gender based violence are eligible, but survivors are only eligible for this if they have a court order or police report. This bill would allow survivors to use alternative documentation and expand protection to survivors of any violent victimization experiences and their loved ones.

This bill will also make it easier for survivors to secure housing after they escape abuse or violence, reducing housing instability and increasing safety. One barrier survivors face when they are trying to relocate to safe housing is that their rental applications can be rejected because of circumstances surrounding their victimization or discriminatory perceptions that survivors are risky to rent to. Survivors and survivor advocates in California agree that prohibiting landlords from rejecting rental applications because of circumstances surrounding a victimization would help more survivors secure housing.

And as a property manager, this is very important because being able to reject and approve rental applications is very risky if they have problems that shows up on their report. This bill will strengthen survivors access to safe housing and reduce housing instability and abuse. For these reasons, we ask for your support on SB 1051. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next please.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Taylor Campion, and I'm a Senior Managing Attorney of the Family Violence Appellate Project Housing and Employment Justice Program. Family Violence Appellate Project is a co-sponsor of this bill and a legal aid support center that advocates for survivors throughout California. I've represented tenants looking for housing and have been a landlord. California law allows some survivors to stay safe from abuse by letting them change their rental unit locks and protects many people looking for housing from discrimination.

However, current law does not protect many survivors of abuse and crime because it has limited reach and fails to consider survivors' realities. Given that domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness and survivors often struggle to obtain housing after becoming homeless, clarifying and standardizing survivors protections will benefit all Californians. SB 1051 protects many survivors of abuse and violence by increasing their access to locks changes, and clearly prohibiting housing providers from discriminating against survivors because of their victimizations.

It does so by increasing the types of survivors who can change their locks and the types of documents that qualify them for their locks change. These updates will ensure the same types of survivors who can access California's early lease termination law, and California survivors eviction protection may also change their locks. SB 1051 also protects survivors from being denied housing as a result of past victimizations. Frequently, survivors struggle to find housing because landlords mistakenly view the result of their victimization unfavorably.

For example, they're denied housing because an eviction on their record that was caused from abuse. By increasing locks changes and prohibiting discrimination, this bill will ensure more survivors have safe housing, increasing housing stability, and survivors chance of escaping abuse. Therefore, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. Anthony DiMartino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. We are co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sandra Gonzalez, and I'm with crime survivors for safety and justice. And I agree with the Bill.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn now to the opposition. If you're. Excuse me. If you oppose the SB 1287, please approach. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Questions, comments by Committee Members? Seeing none. All right, Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I think the folks are coming up and supporting this today, and I ask for your I vote.

All right, thank you. At appropriate time, I expect a motion, and then we'll call the roll. Thank you. Senator Glazer. Senator Glazer is not here. He's on his way. So it will now be a foot race between Senator Glazer and any other Senator whose Bill happens to be up today before Senate Judiciary Committee.

I mean, you have some bills, don't you?

Yeah. I'm gonna wait, though. Yeah.

How are you feeling?

I'm not feeling great. Step aside.

Senator Glazer. Thank you. Senator Glazer, please approach. We've got three bills by. Senator Glazer. Senator Glazer, would you like to start with item number six, SB 1287?

Great. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I'm very good.

Members. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill, and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments. SB 1287 affirms the role that California public colleges and universities must take to ensure that students can exercise their free speech rights and exchange views respectfully. In recent months and weeks, we've witnessed an alarming trend of escalating harassment, intimidation, and violence targeted at marginalized groups on our campuses. This obviously threatens the safety and well being of our students, faculty, and staff.

It threatens the educational environment, and it threatens the free exchange of ideas. A result of this ongoing unrest, the federal Office of Civil Rights has opened investigations into discrimination on the basis of shared ancestry at 10 different California campuses. Our colleges have a responsibility to promote free speech while preventing discrimination and harassment. The amendments that I'm committed to taking significantly address First Amendment scrutiny, especially for public universities, whose student code of conducts include such provisions ensuring that they are firmly rooted in constitutional principles.

In addition, case law has affirmed that colleges need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with their basic educational mission. This Bill aligns with this responsibility by requiring campuses to Institute policies that explicitly prohibit violence, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination, including calls for genocide. SB 1287 also requires universities to develop programs to educate students on how to exchange views respectfully. By fostering respect, civility, and inclusivity, we create a supportive atmosphere where all Members of the University community can thrive. With that, I respect. Thank you for your consideration of the Bill today. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

All right, thank you. Mister Berg, I assume you're here in support.

Correct. Mike on. Mike working. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Cliff Berg here. On behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs. Committee of California, which is the largest single state coalition of Jewish organizations in the nation. We and all the organizations that signed our letter and JPAC is made up of over 36 different statewide and regional organizations in California are in support of SB 1287, which would require institutions of higher education to update and enforce provisions in their student codes to prevent instances of intimidation, harassment, and violence on college campuses.

It is ironic that we in the Jewish community began to celebrate the first night of Passover last night, which is the story of the exodus and the freedom of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt. Yet Jewish people in California and the United States today face more harassment intimidation and the threat of violence than they have since the 1930s. It is incredible that in this country we are facing the situation that we have.

We had an empty seat at our table for the hostages, which still have not been released in Gaza. We urge your ongoing support. And I do also have a brief statement, if I did not lose it in my stack, from one of our Member organizations, the Anti Defamation League, which is also in support of the Bill. And we'll briefly, I think, since I am the primary support witnesses. Anti Defamation League was founded in 1913 in response to an escalating climate of anti semitism and bigotry.

ADL is a leading national anti hate and civil rights organization. According to ADL's recently released audit of anti semitic incidents, anti semitic incidents at college campuses spiked by a staggering 321% to 922 incidents, most of which took place after Hamas' October 7th Terrorist attack. Since October 7, the percentage of.

Thank you, Mister Berg.

Thank you, Mister Chairman I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses? Other primary witnesses in support. Senator Glazer, are there other primary witnesses in support?

He was doing both.

Mister Berg was going to do both.

Okay. Defamation league was the second, so.

Oh, I see. Okay. All right. If you wish to express your support for SB 1287, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Mister chair, Members of the Committee, Randy Pollack, President of Mosaic Law congregation here in Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Chairman Unberg. Bruce Palmer, representing the Jewish Community Relations Council, Sacramento, and also the Sacramento Jewish Federation in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1287, please. If you're the primary witness, you may either testify from the microphone to my left or you may come and sit at the table. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a legislative advocate with the ACLU California action. Our organization respectfully opposes SB 1287. We recognize that our universities and colleges are managing high intentions and threats on campuses while trying to keep students safe, and we take these concerns brought by the author, co authors, and the speaker today seriously. Unfortunately, many institutions are handling these moments of tensions by stifling and restricting speech that is protected by both the US and California constitutions.

We have reviewed the Committee amendments and we have appreciated the narrowed Bill Language. But as amended, the Bill will still restrict speech based on its viewpoint or content, which fails the strict scrutiny standard required by the First Amendment and state law. Even the Senate judiciary analysis has indicated that students must be able to receive a higher education in California without being required to waive their rights to free expression and peaceful protest.

To be clear, neither the First Amendment nor California law protects behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment and threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. Existing law already authorizes educational institutions to, for example, establish reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. Existing law already authorizes institutions to adopt code of conduct that prohibits unlawful harassment. These existing laws and policies are applicable to every one of the specific incidents identified in the author's comments supporting the need for this legislation.

But rather than to work to improve the implementation of existing law and increase tolerance of divergent views, SB 1287 invites censorship in the name of civility. This legislation will likely lead to colleges and universities to silence a range of protected speech based on viewpoint alone, which is unconstitutional. Punishing students and speakers on campus when they lawfully and peacefully exercise their fundamental right of free expression is wrong and unconstitutional, even when the speech being expressed might be offensive, inflammatory, or even uncivil.

This sort of punishment is also expensive business for California by demanding that the institution follow SB 1287 strictures and threatening penalties when they don't. So, for these reasons, ACLU of California actions asks the Committee to vote no on SB 1287 because it is unconstitutional.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. All right, next witness, please.

Good morning. Chair Umberg and Senate Judiciary Committee Members. My name is Omar Altamimi. I'm a senior policy coordinator with the Council on American Islamic Relations or Care, California chapter. On behalf of our organization, I'm here to respectfully express our strong opposition, SB 1287. This proposed legislation will unconstitutionally censor and chill the first Amendment protected speech of students on college campuses.

And while we appreciate the Committee's amendments to SB 1287, we agree with the ACLU that the amended Bill Language still attempts to unconstitutionally restrict First Amendment protected speech. Specifically, as noted by the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, even in its amended form, portions of the Bill would prohibit speech based on its content or viewpoint, which fails the strict scrutiny standard required by the First Amendment.

Further, as an organization serving and protecting the civil rights and liberties of Californians in the Muslim California community, we have received a record breaking number of complaints over the past several months showing a familiar pattern of Muslim and non Muslim students expressing solidarity with Palestine.

Facing suppression of their right to free speech on college campuses amidst a rise of islamophobia, these students are being disproportionately harassed, criminalized, and subject to disciplinary action for simply exercising the First Amendment rights, including on April 5 at Pomona College, which deployed 30 police officers, some in riot gear, to arrest and jail 19 student activists exercising their First Amendment right by partaking in a peaceful, on campus sit in the University of Southern California's recent cancellation of the scheduled graduation speech by Muslim valedictorian Asna Tabassum, giving in to anti Muslim and anti Palestinian voices.

And as we're seeing now at Columbia University, Yale, and now UC Berkeley, students are being subject to novel punishment for continuing the tradition of protesting on campus, as they had done for the labor movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the ethnic studies movement, and so on. Student protests have led to amazing moments in our history and turning points, and this Bill will only further chill and suppress the speech of Muslim and pro Palestinian students on college campuses. And so, for these reasons, we respectfully request that the Committee vote no on SB 1287 at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, for those of you who wish to testify, please give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. So please approach the microphone if you're in opposition to SB 1287.

Hi, I'm Stephen Ramos. I'm a law student at UC Davis. Strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mikaela Anan. I'm a JD PhD student at UC Davis, and I also strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jus Verhaeje. I'm a poli Sci major at UC Merced, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Valerie Mendoza. I'm a political science major at UC Merced, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Henry Hickman. I'm the co chair of the Young Democratic Socialists of America at UC Merced. I strongly oppose this Bill, and also, this Bill is a clear attack on. The recent pro Palestinian protests.

Thank you very much.

You call for a restriction.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and shut down the microphone. Thanks.

Please. If you care about the first amendment, especially if you care about students, not pass on bias.

Thank you. All right, next witnessed.

And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Dominic Kelly. I'm a graduating political science major from UC Merced, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Myles Azovito. I am a first year mechanical engineering undergraduate at UC Merced, and I appreciate the intent of the Bill, but I strongly oppose it in its current form.

All right, thank you.

Hello. This is Sahiti Kunduru, a student at UC Merced, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ayde Sabeles. I'm a critical race and ethnic studies major at UC Merced, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Sophia Elquihel. I'm a student at UC Davis school of law and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Aishma Niern. I'm a law student at UC Davis and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Aliyah Skye. I'm a proud anti zionist Jewish American, and I am also speaking on behalf of the UC student Association, which represents over 230,000 UC undergrads. You should speak to your students. You should listen to your students. We strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Kate Hamilton. I am a law student at UC Davis and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kyle Johnson. I'm the Legislative Director with the associated students at UC Davis as well as a board Member for the UC Student Association, fourth organization stand in firm opposition.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Luna Loganiagam. I'm the Vice President for diversity equity inclusion for the Graduate Student Association at UC Davis, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, my name is Chelly Signs. I'm a Member of the UCSA board. I work in the legislative office at UC Davis, and I'm also the student observer to the UC regents. And I firmly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Shivani Gujarati. I am an undergraduate student at UC Davis and I am the Legislative Director for local affairs and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Ruth Sosa Martinez. I'm a master's of public policy student at Sacramento State and here on behalf of young Invincibles, we strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Amara Santos. I'm an undergraduate at San Francisco State University and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Valeria Cantor Mendez. I'm the head of staff for the external affairs office at the Associated Students of UC Davis. I'm also the Vice Chair for the UC Student Association and we both stand in opposition of this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is William Robey. I'm here with students for quality education. In the black student Union at Sacramento State University, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Michael Lee Chang, SAC State student. On behalf of students for quality education, or SQE, at SAC State, we oppose this Bill in the name of the third world Liberation Front.

Thank you.

Amaya Terry, second year students here with students for quality education and BSU, and I oppose this Bill as it will also stifle black voices on campus.

Thank you.

My name is Soni Jatravedi, and I'm a law student at UC Davis, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Marlene Renderos. I'm also a law student at UC Davis, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Stanford McConaughey. I'm a third year law student at King Hall, UC Davis School of Law, Member of the National Lawyers Guild, and on behalf of the UC, on behalf of the Davis graduate medical, veterinary and law students for Palestine, we strongly oppose this Bill.

Alright, thank you very much. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's bring it back here to Committee. Questions? Comments? Seeing none. Oh, yes, Senator Niello.

Thank you. Just a comment. This is not in the documentation here, but I'm a co author of the Bill. I understand the statements of the opposition, but I don't see this as a violation of free speech. What is going on in our country right now in reaction to the Far East? I find incredulous the stereotyping of all jews in this country as supporting Israel, which I'm not saying they shouldn't, but there's an automatic conclusion just because they're Jewish. And what this Bill does doesn't restrict speech.

But unfortunately, the behavior on college campuses, as we're seeing in Columbia and Yale right now, goes way beyond just speech and invades into the territory of intimidation and physical threats, and it has to stop, and we should not allow that here in California.

All right, thank you. Senator Glazer, as you're well aware, this is a controversial Bill, and this is a Bill that has First Amendment implications. And what we do here today also has perhaps some implications in terms of how this is going to be viewed by the courts. My guess is that someone may challenge us in court. And so I think it's important that we understand your intent here with the Bill and in particular with the recent amendments to the Bill.

The recent amendments call for defining, calling for genocide as a verbal or nonverbal act that are both, and let me emphasize that both intended to and reasonably understood as calling for genocide. Is that your understanding? Yes.

The Bill is content neutral, contrary to some of the witnesses testimony. It speaks to the advocacy of genocide, and that could be genocide against all different protected classes and peoples throughout our state, our country, the world.

So just to understand, I understand I'm to some degree gilding the lily here, but I think it's important that we make it clear in terms of your intent, the speaker one had to intend to call for genocide, and the person hearing it, the statement had to reasonably understand the statement is a call for genocide. Is that your understanding?

That's correct. And it has to be consistent with Supreme Court interpretations of First Amendment as being limited to situations in which speakers seek to coordinate their advocacy with those engaged in genocide.

And I know we've got a number of law students here, and so they'll understand the concept of specific intent that the person who is engaged in calling for genocide has to have the specific intent to call for genocide. Is that right?

That is correct.

All right. Let me just understand that. So to the extent this Bill requires csus and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting calling for genocide, these policies can only apply to this narrow category of statements where the speaker specifically intended to call for genocide. And the hearer understood the statement to be calling for genocide. Is that right?

That's correct.

All right, thank you. Thanks. No other questions or comments here from Committee Members. We do not have a full Committee. At the point in time when we do have a full Committee and we have a quorum, I expect that there will be a motion. Would you like to close, Senator Glazer?

Senator, thank you to you and your staff for your consideration of the bill today. There's a lot of troubling incidents that are happening around our country on college campuses. This is a bill that's narrowly crafted to try to protect our students and their free speech rights and to prohibit violence, intimidation, harassment, and the calling for genocide of all people. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

All right, thank you very much. Appropriate time we'll take the bill up for a vote. Let me now turn to your next bill, which is item number seven, SB 1462. Senator Glazer, SB 1462.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

Not quite as controversial.

Members, there are practically no new condos being built in California despite our housing crisis. Between 2011 and 2021, condos made up just 3% of all residential construction. 3%. If you look at another country, like Canada, they're building more than 30% of their housing stock are condominiums. So this is a serious problem because this is an entry level marketplace for many people. Home ownership begins sometimes with condominium ownership.

So this bill intends to increase condominium production statewide by allowing developers to use a buyer's deposit on the unit towards construction. Allowing developers to use more cash, as opposed to loans with high interest rates, will reduce their risk and lower their costs. This bill includes, importantly, some consumer protections by requiring developers to post a bond or other substantially similar financial instruments approved by the Department of Real Estate. If the buyer... Excuse me.

If the developer does not complete the condominium, my intention is the bond will kick in to complete the project or refund the buyer. I want to reiterate this point, as opposition may raise it. I will work through any questions about the bond to ensure consumers are protected. Additionally, I understand the Department of Real Estate may not be the best Department to administer the bond. I'll explore what Department can best do that if this bill moves forward today in order to ensure that we're protecting consumers. With me today to testify and support is Jordan Panana Carbajal from California YIMBY, along with David Marshall from the Westbank. With that, at appropriate time, respectfully ask for your support today.

All right, thank you very much. Sir, floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, Legislative Advocate for California YIMBY, here to speak in support of SB 1462. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 members dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family for all Californians. Condominiums are often entry level homes for first time home buyers, averaging 2.7 times less than the standard single family home, making home ownership more affordable to working families.

Despite this, only 3% of new homes in California between 2011 and 2021 were condos. One of the main reasons condo production remains low in California is the state's limit on developers utilizing homebuyer's deposit when constructing condo projects. SB 1462 will allow condo developers to use deposits made by buyers to cover construction costs while upholding protections to ensure the buyer is refunded if the project is not completed.

To create more affordable homeownership opportunities in California, we must reduce the cost and risk for developers, such as increasing the availability of interest free financing while still requiring strong consumer protection. It is for these reasons California YIMBY respectfully request your support for SB 1462.

Thank you very much. All right, other witnesses in support.

Good morning, and thank you to the Committee and Chair for allowing me to speak here today. My name is David Marshall, and I work for a prominent high rise condominium developer in North America and Asia. We have many entitled projects in California, none of which are entitled for condos, despite our preference, experience, and disposition to do so. The reason we chose not to move forward with condo is for one simple reason, it didn't underwrite. But this isn't a housing issue.

Many of our projects are rental residential. It is simply a condo issue. To break it down, there are two key characteristics that this bill helps to underwrite condos that align both the developer and the buyer. First, this bill provides certainty. A developer bonding against and using the deposit funds gives greater certainty to the buyer that their home will be built and to the developer that the funds are there to construct. Currently, the law essentially creates a 3% option contract. Should the market go up. Great.

The buyer just bought the value increase for 3%. Should the market go down, the buyer can terminate and lock in their downside for 3%. Given housing prices in California, this is heavily favoring the buyer. Importantly, I ask the Committee to note that this bill does not provide that buyers must make their entire deposit upfront. Buyers would be able to make their deposits throughout the development in order to allow buyers of different incomes. Second, financeability. Financing is aided by higher pre-sales and less debt.

This bill encourages pre-sales by bolstering the deposit ceiling to better align the developer and buyer to even the risk of the transaction. The bonding component of this bill provides financing for a project as well as oversight to protect consumers and ensure completion. Additionally, the ability to bond against deposits would provide a backstop for financial market volatility where developers will always have access to this cheap debt.

Given that financing costs are such a large portion of the cost to construct right now, bonding higher deposits directly decrease the cost to construct and lowers the price point that a developer must hit to underwrite their projects, naturally creating more affordable housing. I urge the Committee to view San Francisco or San Diego as an example of this issue. What are the types of condominiums that are being constructed? It's all ultra luxury. This is unlike what we are seeing in multifamily rental. This is because a developer can only underwrite a project with a high enough margin to make them much higher risk appetizing. To put it bluntly, would you accept more risk for less reward?

All right. Thank you. Could you wrap it up, please?

I ask the Committee to consider this as an intuitive option for developers to create for sale housing during this crisis, as communities are strongest, not only with renters, but with homeowners...

All right, thank you very much. Okay, other witnesses in support of SB 1462, please approach the microphone.

Catherine Charles here on behalf of Housing Action Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR in strong support.

Thank you. All right. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone...

Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

I declined... I forgot to mention at the beginning I'm accepting the Committee amendment, so I wanted to make sure that was on the record.

Yes, thank you very much for working with the Committee. I think we've improved the bill. All right, so others who may be opposed to SB 1462, please approach. You may approach either the microphone to my left or come to the table, whichever you choose.

Mister chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Anna Buck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we're here representing nearly 200,000 real estate licensees in opposition to this Bill today. This Bill, while it is truly well intentioned to attempt to address the housing crisis we're facing here in California, it has the potential to financially devastate potential homebuyers.

SB 1462 not only eliminates the state's liquidated damages cap for new condominium developments, but also enables developers to use a buyer's good faith deposit towards any cost of the project. Effectively, SB 1462 allows developers to keep the buyer's entire deposit regardless of the percentage of the sales price. Allowing developers to use buyer funds in this way is effectively lending developers buyers hard earned down payment funds at 0% interest.

If developers can't be in a position to be funding basic construction, perhaps they should not be in business. This Bill requires, or the Committee amendments require, an informed consent warning to consumers, as well as a bond to be put in place. However, these types of bonds do not currently exist in our market and we've seen no indication from bonding companies that that would be the case.

Having a home purchase where a buyer is warned where that they may not get a home that they sacrifice to afford because a developer does not complete the project and may not get their money back is unprecedented in our state and it's contrary to California's long history of consumer protection. And really, it's just simply wrong. Regardless of the Committee amendments, the informed consent provisions that are being added to the Bill, California is three and a half million units short of housing and homebuyers are desperate.

This Bill creates a situation where these potential homebuyers would be highly susceptible to entering into these predatory contracts and therefore, we must oppose this Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Chair and Senators Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Escrow Association, representing escrow officers who are predominantly in title companies and in independent escrow companies companies. While we appreciate the amendments accepted today and do think it improves the Bill, unfortunately, we still believe that this Bill is not the right approach. Fundamentally, our escrow officers are concerned about the lack of the consumer protections that are in the Bill, specifically as it relates to the purchasers deposit and the removal of the 3% liquidated damages cap.

Specifically, the lack of accountability about whether the access to the deposits funds actually reduce the price of the construction and the use of the bonds as a mechanism to protect consumers is troubling. Our Members have a lot of questions about how the bonds would be prose to work. Would it be able to collect on the bonds? Would consumers be able to collect on the bonds? We have seen and have heard of situations in Florida and Hawaii who have similar statutes where there's a lot of litigation.

We are looking further into that, but that raises a lot of concerns for us. Additionally mentioned in the business and professions Committee analysis, there are some concerns about DFPI and CDI enforcement actions against escrow officers who work in independent escrow companies and title companies for complying with this Bill. We hope that future amendments will address those concerns.

Overall, this Bill, we believe this Bill turns home purchasers into investors by allowing their deposit, which they could be paying interest on, to fund developers in the hope, in the hope that the home is constructed and hopefully at a reduced price, coupled with the removal of the liquidated damages cap. We think this is too risky of an investment for most Californians who are desperate for home ownership. Thank you

Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Morning, Mister chair Members. Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of the Community Associations Institute, California Legislative Action Committee in opposition.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members questions seeing. Yes, Senator Caballero.

So let me just say that I think this is really a unique proposal and very creative. I have some concerns about it. I'm going to support it today because I think you're, you're going in the right direction. But I'm concerned with some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition. And as you know, if attorneys get money that's not theirs, they have to hold it in a trust account.

And so the ability to keep it safe and in an account that is, cannot be used for day to day purposes is going to be really important. So the money is protected. And then I do think there needs to be a maximum down payment in terms of, I'd be really uncomfortable if people were putting down $50,000 and let me tell you why. During the mortgage meltdown, what we found is that people, as the increase in homes escalated, people got desperate to get into homes.

And so what they did is they begged and they borrowed from family Members and in order to have enough down payment, and they ended up doing it as a group. So four or five people would buy a house in order to be able to afford the payment and have the credit that they needed.

And so I don't want to see us run into a situation where people are begging and borrowing to come up with a big down because finally they're going to be able to get into a house that they'll own or a condo that they own and then they lose it because the contractor miscalculated, stole the money, did something else with it.

So it's gonna be important to make sure that there's at least a maximum and then a timeline so that a developer doesn't get these deposits and then sit on them. There are projects in the community that I represent that have been proposed for the past 15, 20 years because they just don't pencil out for whatever reason in today's market. And so I think that's all of that is going to be very important if we're going to really protect consumers.

And that's my goal is to protect consumers and to build affordable housing. This has been my number one issue since way back when. So I really do appreciate the thought that's gone into this. And I do it think we need to get condos and smaller lot developments going in order for to allow people to be able to afford their starter home.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. Other questions or comments? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mister chair. Senator Glazer, I appreciate you reaching out to me yesterday and explaining amendments, but I can't support this because I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done to, I'll use the term violate the status of a deposit. I just think that that needs to be protected and I just can't think of circumstances that would allow it to otherwise be used, be it attorneys deposit in an escrow or deposit in escrow for this or any other purpose.

I just think that that is a thing that should not be violated for whatever good reason might otherwise make sense.

May I speak address that?

Sure.

First, that's the whole reason that we're proposing that there has to be a bond to keep the consumer whole. And as the opponents argue, there's not a market for it. Well, there's no market for a bond, then this Bill has no effect, period. You can't use the deposit because you can't get a bond to assure that the consumers will be made whole in case the developer walks away or doesn't follow the agreement. So that really is the heart of the consumer protection.

Suggestions from other Members of the Committee. I think I'm open to incorporating. But here's the dilemma, Senator. We have a housing crisis and you say, okay, why is that? And people can point to CEQA or they can point to lots of different things, but the heart of it for the capital markets is that the investment, the risk is too high for the return, that the cost of building is too great for any return they could expect.

And so this goes at the heart of what I think is creating this problem in our marketplace, which is that a developer, this attempts to lower the cost of money. It's true. It is a no interest opportunity to take that deposit money and use it much different than what a bank would charge.

That's all true, because that changes the equation for a developer where they say, hey, I can maybe afford to make this happen now because instead of paying 8% interest, I have a 0% interest plus the cost of this bond and the obligations to make sure that what I say turns out to be true and covers the risk of the person putting the deposit down.

And that gap of that zero to eight plus the cost of the bond is, as you've heard from witnesses, a material effect on their ability to say, I could build that project. We have a lot of condominium projects, housing projects that have been approved in the state, hundreds of thousands of units. And you have to ask yourself the question, why are they not being built? And you know, and I know it's because of that risk question and the reward question, and it's about costs.

Now, can we do anything about labor costs or land costs or supply costs? It's tough for us to legislate in those places, but what we can have something to do with is financing costs. This attempts to go in that space say we can have some effect on lowering the cost of financing. Otherwise, why do we think we're going to get ourselves out of this housing problem? That's the dilemma that I'm trying to help solve with this measure.

And it's why the bond is integral to its advancement, because it has to be able to protect the consumer and make sure that if you have a developer who for whatever reason steps away, that that consumer must be protected and some of the additional protections Senator Caballero suggests. Just, I'm open to doing as well.

Thank you. Other questions or comments, Senator Niello

If I could, the challenge with building condominiums in particular is a little bit different than the challenge of building other housing units. And I think that there's an aspect of liability, ongoing liability there with condominium developments. But that point aside, if we are concerned about the cost of building housing, perhaps we ought to take a look at regulatory costs of building housing. You mentioned CEQA, but there's more than CEQA.

There are things that are required on housing units that add to the cost, the benefit of which can be questioned, and we tend not to question the relative cost of those benefits. And I would suggest that that particular policy exploration could have significantly greater impact on the cost of housing and then therefore supply than this proposal.

No doubt there are other proposals. Thank you, Senator Niello. Alright, other questions or comments? No. So a couple comments. First off, Senator Glazer, the developer may not use the deposit unless there is consent by the depositor. Is that correct?

That is correct. Informed consent is part of the Committee amendments that I've accepted.

And in terms of the informed consent, I welcome other language from the opponents. I personally think the informed consent provision amendments that you've accepted are fairly robust. I think that people are smart enough to understand what informed consent means, in other words, that they have to know the risks. Is that your understanding as well?

It is, and that's why I think opposition from the escrow officers should be resolved because there's clear direction in the work that they do. There's informed consent for the actions that are on the table.

The second point is my understanding of bonding companies. Bonding companies actually do scrutinize the entity that they're bonding and that they're going to make sure that they have sufficient security to be able to collect. Should they have, should someone actually try to receive part or all the proceeds of the bond. Is that your understanding as well?

That is correct. And also why we've added another layer of protection by requiring, in this case, the Department of Real Estate to bless that bond, to have another set of eyes and ears exactly on the same analysis that any bond company would engage in.

So no bond, no deal.

Correct, sir.

All right. And then thirdly, Senator Caballero raised the point about timing, which I thought was a good point, and asked that you consider as this Bill moves along, that the use of that deposit not be indefinite, that there be some sort of time constraint on how quickly they can use that deposit. Is that something you would consider?

It is. You also raised an issue of a cap on the down payment, and I'm open to considering that as well.

All right. All right, thank you, Senator Glazer. Seeing no other comments or questions, we are Subcommitee. At the appropriate time, I expect there'd be a motion. Would you like to close?

Thank you for your review of the Bill today. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. All right, next is SB 1482 by Senator Glazer, item number eight.

Thank you, Members. This is a Bill that's going to look very familiar to you because you passed a very similar Bill like it. On a 10 to zero vote earlier this year, that Bill was held up in appropriations, which is why we're back again. As small business borrowers have increasingly struggled to access traditional bank loans, they've resorted to alternative forms of financing to start, maintain and grow their businesses.

Alternative financing products include sales based financing, like merchant advances factoring lease financing all the way, which are structured in a way that make them do that, basically are loans. Unfortunately, gaps in California's commercial financing law have allowed some bad actors to take advantage of small business borrowers. Often unscrupulous actors steer small business borrowers into higher cost financing so they can get a better Commission. Borrowers are also encouraged to sign financing contracts with clauses that waive their right to legal representation. Proper court procedure.

So this Bill regulates that predatory practice, such as brokers acting as merchant cash advance mills, that focuses on placing applicants into high rate financing. This Bill also closes loopholes in our current law by prohibiting any action that he construed as a confession of judgment, unquote. And as many of you know, confessions of judgment prohibit borrowers from legal representation if they default on a loan. The amendments I made recently resolved a pending issue with opposition.

It removed the requirement that brokers disclose the lowest approximate APR a borrower could potentially qualify for it. With me today, I have Louis Kadiespec, Executive Director of the responsible Business Lending Coalition, and Bianca Bloomquist with the small business majority. With that appropriate time, respectfully, Astro, and I vote.

Thank you. All right, those in support of SB 1482, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Chairman Unberg, Vice Chair Wilk, Members of the Committee, my name is Bianca Blomquist. I direct California operations for Small Business Majority, a national nonprofit network of 100,000 small business owners with a historic presence here in California, were in strong support of SB 14. SB 1482 promotes responsible small business lending practices in three key ways. First, it regulates predatory practices by brokers. The Bill enforces transparency and ethical behavior in lending practices, protecting small business owners from unfair terms and hidden fees.

It levels the playing field for loan and non loan products. By applying a consistent rule to all types of financing, SB 1482 ensures that small business owners have a clear understanding of their options and enable them to make informed decisions. It also closes existing loopholes. The Bill addresses gaps in current laws that allow bad actors to exploit small business owners. By fixing these loopholes, SB 1482 fosters a fair and competitive marketplace for small business owners and consumers alike.

The story of Malibu's Burger's owners, Darren and Natasha Preston of Oakland and their struggles with high cost debt underscore the urgent need for SB 1482. In 2022, they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, losing Natasha's family inheritance due to opaque and unfair lending practices. Their experience, unfortunately, is not unique. Many small business owners face exploitation in their quest for capital to start or grow their businesses. By supporting SBIR 1482, you are helping to create a safer, more equitable lending environment for small business owners across California. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1482.

Honorable Members, my name is Louis Caditz-Peck. I'd like to thank you for your past support of the Bill and given that ill be brief, I serve as the Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition, an organization of for profit and nonprofit voices dedicated to innovation in small business financing. We represent over 1000 small business groups, for profit financing providers, nonprofit cdfis, community advocates, as well as tens of thousands of small businesses themselves. This Bill accomplishes three things.

Number one, it brings some oversight to the wild west of small business loan brokering, which now resembles pre crisis subprime mortgage brokering. Number two, it addresses bad practices described in a business week expose entitled sign here to lose everything, the predatory lending machine crushing small businesses across America. And number three, it closes a loophole in California's small business truth and lending framework, a remarkable achievement. Thank you Senator Glazer and others that all voted for it as well.

But currently it asks bad actor financing companies to police themselves and slap their own wrists. This Bill would fix that. Thank you for your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to actually, let me check. Is there anybody else that would like to testify and support the me too. Please come forward.

Hi, my name is Dara Dada with CAMEO, California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity and we support this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Hello, chair Members Dani Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support? Seeing no one else, the lead witnesses in opposition. If you'd like to come forward, please. Is there anybody in opposition? Would you like to testify at the mic or at the table?

This is fine. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Committee Members Pat Joyce on behalf of Ford Financing, a sales based financing company that serves thousands of small businesses in California, we have an opposed, less amended position to SB 1482 and want to acknowledge the work thus far of the author to amend the Bill, especially removing that problematic provision related to best estimate APR disclosure.

So we appreciate that and we agree with the author's overall goal of creating transparency in the marketplace and bringing accountability to brokers and providers who are not doing what they're supposed to do. And this includes. We support establishing a licensing framework in California. In the previous Committee in Senate banking, I think there was some discussion, registration versus licensing. We may differ from others in the market, but we would like to be licensed. In fact, right now, for all intensive purposes, providers do have to register.

Under the expansion of UDAP to to commercial financing, providers are required to submit annual reports to the Department. This includes contact information and other relevant information related to transactions from the previous year. So if the Department wants to go after bad actors right now for deceptive, unfair and abusive practices, they can do that. They know where to find them. I think the main sticking point that remains is how to go about licensing.

The Bill proposes overlaying a new licensing framework on top of the CFL, which we disagree with. It's a very confusing, convoluted law and very difficult to navigate. Our preference would be to work with the author, the Department, through technical assistance, and figure out an alternative approach, something that's more straightforward and simpler.

And you take that and pair it with some of the laws that have been passed over the past three years, including SB 1235 disclosures, which is a big deal, the expansion of UDap, which I mentioned, as well as the prohibition of junk fees under SB 666. All these three laws just went into effect the past year. So it's our preference to take a beat. Let the market adjust to these three new laws and regulations which are important for the market in protecting small businesses. and I will conclude with that and appreciate no vote at the time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition, please approach. Microphone. Name, affiliation? Position?

Nico Molina. On behalf of Capitis and Rapid Finance, then opposed unless amended. Position. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else approached mic, let's bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members seeing none. So, Senator Glazer, would you like to close the Bill?

We've been working with opposition. We've narrowed the gap in terms of our differences. We certainly enjoy the support of the broader small business lending community, but we're going to continue to work on some of these issues of registration versus licensing. So if this Bill moves forward today with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. Appropriate time. I expect a motion and we'll take a vote. All right.

Finally, Mister Chairman, there is a Bill on a vote only. I know you don't have a quorum yet, but certainly we're respect to going and appreciate that consideration at the appropriate time.

Yes, we will take that up for vote only. Okay. Thank you. But I'm going to, I see no other authors here. I'm going to ask Senator Ashby to, she has witnesses here present item number 23, SB 1498. So if you're here on SB 1498, I realize we're taking it out of order, but because we want to move as along as efficiently as is possible, Senator Ashby, if you wouldn't mind presenting item number 23, SB 1498.

Thank you, Chairman Umberg. Some of my witnesses are here for the next item, but we'll start with 1498 if you'd like. It's fine.

Oh, I'm sorry. Which item were you focused upon?

989.

All right, we can do 989. That's fine.

Yes, we'll do 989, and then at your discretion, we can do 1498 if you like. All right, 989. That's just to make sure that folks listening and are here understand what bill we're on. We're on number 19, SB 989. Thank you. Senator Ashby, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chairman Umberg, and thank you to my witnesses for being here and sitting through Judish with us. Appreciate you very much, Chairman. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the judiciary staff for working with our team so diligently today, I am very proud to present SB 989. This is the Domestic Violence Deaths Act. SB 989 enhances investigation protocols surrounding domestic violence related deaths by empowering investigators with evidence based detection methods to identify potentially suspicious cases.

This bill gives coroners the authority to inquire into deaths they deem suspicious and expands rights to immediate family members to obtain information about their deceased loved ones. Nearly one third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. Additionally, experts estimate that around 1200 hidden homicides occur annually, often disguised as staged crime scenes. Staged crime scenes create significant challenges for investigators, leading to inaccurate death certificates and classifications often deemed as suicide or accidents.

Research has identified 10 evidence based factors that warrant more thorough investigation into suspicious deaths. SB 989 adds these factors into investigation protocols, requiring law enforcement to consider them before determining the final cause of death. This bill equips investigators, coroners and families with the necessary tools and detection measures to identify suspicious cases.

Instead of ruling these deaths as suicide without further investigation, SB 989 ensures that law enforcement conduct more thorough investigations into suspicious deaths involving domestic violence and establishes a voice for families who have long been silenced under the current laws. Mister Chairman, with me today, I have two support witnesses, David Cropp, who is the case manager with the Sacramento Regional Family Justice center, and Joe Hunter, fire captain with the Sacramento Fire Department.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Floor is yours. Whomever would like to go first.

Good morning, Committee chair and Members. My name is David Cropp. I am with the Sacramento Family Justice Center. I also have 20 years of experience working in the area of domestic violence. I have over 35 years of experience in law enforcement. I'm a regional expert witness in domestic violence. I'm board certified in domestic violence, and I'm a licensed therapist. I say all this because I believe that I have the credentials to talk about this important to the legislation.

The first point I'd like to make is that there is nothing in this bill that a good investigator should not already be doing. Everything in this bill should be best practice for law enforcement professionals. Sadly, many law enforcement officers simply do not understand the nuances of domestic violence, strangulation or staged suicide scenes. Officers sometimes fail to recognize clear evidence, a foul play, such as a history of domestic violence. Cases of staged suicides are more prevalent than we might think.

The Alliance for Hope International is working on about 20 cases nationwide, and recent research suggests that there may be thousands of staged suicides in this country. This is not a non existent issue. SB 989 does not place an undue burden on law enforcement. It simply requires law enforcement to understand domestic violence and domestic violence related risk factors. There's no difference between Senate Bill 989 and the 1984 legislation that created Penal Code Section 13700 which is law enforcement's response to domestic violence.

I was a young officer back in those days, and I thought to myself at the time, why are these lawmakers putting their noes into our business? Sadly, implicit biases are alive and well in contemporary society, even in law enforcement. Obviously, I believe that 13700 was absolutely necessary in 1990.

Thank you very much to wrap it up. Thank you. All right, next witness.

Good morning. As was stated, my name is Joe Hunter, and I'm currently a captain with the Sacramento City fire Department, and I've proudly been with them for over 18 years. Simply put, SB 989 would enhance protocol under investigations with suspicious deaths with a history of domestic violence. And to put this in perspective for everyone here today, last year calls for service alone. In 2023, there were over 3555 calls for service of domestic violence with a violent crime history.

That's nearly 10 calls a day for service in this city alone. And I can tell you that SB 989, if it was in play, I wouldn't be sitting here before you, because on October 6th, 2011 at 847 in the morning, I found out I lost my sister to domestic violence. A bill like this could change the outcome of other victims like her and bring justice to Joanna Hunter. I strongly support this bill. It's needed, it's important, and it can have impact on our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Captain. I'm sorry for your loss. Thank you. All right, others in support of SB 989.

Thank you. Kim Stone of Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. And I've also been asked to express the support of the San Diego District Attorney.

Thank you. All right. Others in support.

Elaine Bissett, San Diego DA's office, in support.

Thank you.

Faith Whitmore, representing 30 family justice centers throughout California. The California Family Justice center network, in support.

Thank you.

Patricia Hunter, Joanna Hunter's mother, and the family justice center, I strongly support.

Thank you.

Kayte Christensen, two term board member of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center, survivor. Strongly, wholeheartedly support.

Thank you.

Jeff Neil, representing the County of San Diego. We didn't. Weren't able to get a letter in support in time, but we do support the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, I have no formal opposition registered. If you're opposed to SB 989, please approach the microphone. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Committee. My name is Julio De Leon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside sheriff's office. Unfortunately, we are opposed to the bill not because of the intent of the bill or the advocacy for domestic violence, because we do support that. However this bill approaches, the remedy approaches to remedying these issues go too far and is plagued with implementation issues, uses vague and uncertain language and terms, and poses intergovernmental issues and conflicts for us. We don't deny that staged suicides happen, because they do.

And we don't deny the position that the proponents proposed of additional training for our peace officers oppose that. However, it has been our experience that these stage crimes are quickly recognized by our investigators out in the field due to our current policies and procedures that we have in place. And we investigate all unattended deaths out in the field, all of them. And we have various safeguards and fail safes in place to make sure that none of these staged crimes go uninvestigated.

But the most glaring concern we have with SB 989 is the intergovernmental conflict it poses and its hidden, unfounded, unfunded. Excuse me, unfunded mandate on local governments. It allows family members to mandate local governments and other agencies in the county to conduct independent reviews of death investigations and reach out to and have other agencies within the county conduct those reviews. This places an unfunded mandate on local agencies to dedicate investigators and investigative teams to that review. And who will pay for this review?

Will the agencies conducting the original investigation or the reviewing agency? Why should residents of a particular city fund and pay and dedicate officers to investigate a crime that was potentially committed outside of their jurisdiction on all close? So we do not oppose the training component of the bill, but we do oppose the implementation and the language that's used in the bill. Thank you.

Have you provided those concerns, suggested language, amendments to Senator Ashby?

Yes, we submitted a letter of opposition.

Last week with the suggested amendments and definitions and so forth. Okay, great. Thank you. Others in opposition to SB 989, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, I'll bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Comments? No. All right. Thank you. Senator Ashby. We're a Subcommitee, and at the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Would you like to close?

I would, and I would like to address a couple of the things from this position. Respectfully. We can always do better. This bill is not intended to be an indictment of law enforcement. I'm a longtime supporter of law enforcement, a member of the public safety community from my city, sitting right here with me today. The members of Joanna Hunter's family would disagree that more cannot be done to protect families.

They would be joined by thousands of other families whose loved ones did not receive justice in death. They would also be supported by individuals who were harmed by the same perpetrators because they were not initially caught in the first place. Lastly, as to cost, one of my sponsors is the Alliance for Hope International. They provide this service for free and already have existing relationships with coroners across the state. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Ashby, you have another bill? We don't have any other authors, so what I'm going to do is two things. One, I'm going to implore Committee Members, and for purposes of folks that are viewing this, today is an incredibly busy day in the Legislature. And many members of this Committee also sit, including myself, sit on other committees. And so it is. The fact that they're not here means that they're sitting in other committees or presenting bills in other committees.

But having said that, I would ask the staff to bring their Members down to committees so we can establish a quorum, so we can begin to make sure that we're actually taking votes on these bills. All right, so I'm going to ask Senator Ashby to go ahead if you're prepared to present SB 1498. And then after SB 1498, if we were to go in normal, or it would be Senator Mengevar. Do not see Senator Mengevar.

If Senator Menjivar does not arrive, I'm going to ask Senator Caballero if she wouldn't mind presenting her Bill. All right, Senator Ashby, item number 23, SB 1498.

Thank you, Chairman. I'm here to present SB 1498, which provides a necessary enforcement tool to address the illegal marketing of cannabis and cannabis products that are attractive to children. I would like to very much thank staff for your staff for working with my staff on this Bill. It is vastly improved and I am grateful for your help. I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments. Current law requires that licenses adhere to regulations on the advertising of cannabis, including prohibiting advertising that is attractive to children.

However, some cannabis operators choose to willfully violate these prohibitions by continuing to advertise content that is attractive to children. This leaves the promise of Proposition 64 unfulfilled, failing to protect youth from exposure to cannabis advertising that is attractive to young people. This Bill, as amended, allows the Attorney General, a District Attorney, County Council, or a city attorney to enforce violations in cases where a cannabis licensee violates Proposition 64 cannabis advertising laws.

This is an added level of enforcement expanding on the Department of Cannabis Control's current authority. SB 1498 simply seeks to keep our children safe and ensure Prop 64 is implemented as intended by the voters. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Ashby, for working with the Committee. I know you've spent quite a bit of time on this particular Bill. Those wish to testify in support of SB 1498. If you please approach. Seeing no one approaching. If you're in opposition to SB 1498, please approach the microphone. And you may want to be mindful of the fact that the Bill is very different than the Bill that looked like the Bill a couple days ago.

All right, if you're in opposition to SB 1498, please approach. Seeing no one. Well, one person approaching, maybe. Okay. All right.

Members. George, Miller, on behalf of weedmaps, we're scattered. As your Members are scattered. Members of our industry are scattered. We very much appreciate them. Amendments. Some of our industry participants have had very constructive talks with your staff. We look forward to moving forward. We have a serious concern from the legal industry side as to the implications. We would really like to see it more focused on the illicit marketplace and the hemp. Illicit cannabis and hemp marketplaces. But we look forward to working with you going forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Miller. All right, others in opposition. Seeing no one approaching questions by Committee Members at the appropriate time, I expect that there will be a motion. Senator Ashby, we'd like to close.

Urge an aye vote at the appropriate.

And, Senator Caballero, we'll keep you on deck. I see Senator Smallwood-Cuevas here. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, if you would like to present item number 16, SB 1089, you may do so.

And once again, I'm now at the point of begging Members to actually show up at Senate Judiciary Committee so that we can establish a quorum. So if you're within sound of my voice, please ask your Members, or if you are a Member, to please appear, at least for purpose of establishing a quorum. All right, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, item number 16, SB 1089.

Thank you, Mister chair and colleagues. Good morning. I am thrilled to present SB 1089, which has been identified as a priority Bill for the California Legislative Black Caucuses reparation Bill package. Thank you to the Committee and our sponsors for your hard work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments in 2020. The state Legislature passed AB 3121 to authorize a reparations task force to study the ongoing effects of slavery on African Americans.

Specifically, the task force reparations report called on the Legislature to require grocery stores and pharmacies to provide advance notice to their employees and communities about their store closures. The longstanding history of redlining and disinvestment in our black communities have left many of our neighborhoods with diminished access to grocery stores and pharmacies. During the second half of the 20th century, supermarkets expanded their presence, primarily in the suburbs, as a result of white flight.

And in the 1980s, top grocery store chains began to merge, collapsing services in black communities that resulted in fewer store locations in cities, fewer located in predominantly black neighborhoods, and today's supermarket chains have continued in terms of the reluctance to expand in Low income neighborhoods of color. According to the Institute of the local self help I'm sorry, self reliance, supermarket chains have a demographic location profile that prioritizes communities with a racial bias, communities that are not black and not Low income.

In my community of South Los Angeles, we see this in real time. We also see the real health effects of food deserts and our most vulnerable communities, which have easier access to liquor stores and fast food restaurants than grocery stores. This has continued to ensure that residents in south LA have some of the highest rates of illnesses and die far too often at disproportionate rates of heart disease and diabetes, all preventable diseases similar to food deserts.

Decreased access to pharmacies have turned some black communities into pharmacy deserts. Pharmacy deserts are often an overlooked contributor to persistent racial and ethnic health disparities that leave our communities without their most basic necessities. When pharmacies close, prescriptions may be sold to another establishment, often without any notice to consumers, leaving them with no opportunities to choose where to transfer for their medications.

In some cases, these prescriptions are transferred out of the patient's network, forcing them to pay out of pocket for a transfer they did not request and were given no notice of. Similarly, grocery store closures can be particularly harmful to our black communities, which are more likely to rely on food benefit programs like Calfresh and WIC, but may not know where to find comparable services outside of their neighborhood. SB 1089 will ensure that communities have advance notice and access to the information they need in these situations.

They also will know about job losses, prescription transfers or decreased access to food, and this is particularly important for communities that rely on public transit and need to figure out ways and routes to get to the vital services that they need. They need time to prepare. Over the last week, I've worked closely with the Committee with you, Mister chair.

I want to thank you and the opposition to address their concerns while also ensuring consumers, workers and patients in black communities have access to the information they need in the event of a store closure. SB 1089 will require employers of five or more employees to notify their community workers and relevant agencies within 60 days of their store closure and a 30 day notification requirement requirement for employers with five or less employees.

This Bill would also require that these notices be made available on their storefronts and through existing channels of communications that they normally use with their customers, such as mailers, texts, emails and ethnic media. Additionally, the Bill requires that when pharmacies close, they inform patients of where their prescriptions will be transferred. We take concerns raised by the private right of action for these notices seriously, and we have removed the private right of action for these notices and cap fees for noncompliance at $10,000 per closure.

And that was through the work with the opposition and with the Committee. I am committed to working alongside stakeholders to address their concerns as this Bill continues to move through the legislative process. This is the first of many bills we will hear in the Legislature as part of the black caucuses efforts to restore Black California, which means really restoring all of California and particularly most vulnerable California. To do this, we must protect access to our most basic needs, food and medicine.

No family should be without it. Joining me here today are Cynthia Ayala, pharmacy technician for Rite Aid, and Kimberly Robinson from the Black Women for Wellness Project, and Mariko Yoshihara with UFCW Western States Council, who will be here to answer any technical questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator. Floor is yours. Two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Cynthia Ayala. I am a pharmacy technician. Again, I write it in south central Los Angeles. I've been there for 15 years and also a proud UFCW Local 770 Member as well. I'm here today to testify in strong support report of SB 1089 I have experienced at firsthand the impact that the drug retail closures have, the impact on the workers, and the harm that it causes the patients and in the communities.

On October 15, 2023 Rite Aid filed for bankruptcy and has since closed over 100 union stores in California. While not consistent, workers have typically been receiving two weeks notice when a store is closing, but this timeline has gotten Shorter as more closures occur. Last week at Rite Aid in Highland park, workers received a notice of the day of closure. A few weeks ago, Rite Aid in Cerritos received a 24 hours notice.

Some workers have worked at these locations for over 30 years and are the main breadwinners for their families, receiving less than a day's notice that these families will lose their income, their healthcare benefits, causing significant turmoil and leaves them no time to plan for their futures. Advance Notice of the stores closures will allow us workers to better plan for our transition to consider if we want to accept these transfers that are farther away, take night shifts that arrange for childcare, or even apply for Unemployment Insurance.

We are often expected to make these life changing decisions within 24 hours. Store closures also, pardon me, significantly impact our patients. Patients do not receive information on where their prescriptions will be transferred, causing chaos. The company used to post signs on where the medications would be transferred to, but had since stopped. Then three rite aids closed near my pharmacy. For weeks, we were bombarded with phone calls from patients who couldn't find the prescriptions. This is extremely stressful and distracting when we are dispensing and verifying prescriptions.

We have patients who have their medication transferred out of network pharmacies, requiring them to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket. This is why the protection in SB 1089 is so important, not only for workers, but for our patients in our community.

Thank you. If you could wrap it up.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next witness.

Good morning and thank you, Mister Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kim Robinson. I'm the community liaison with Black Women for Wellness and I'm reading this testimony on behalf of my colleague, Oyema Obikia, black women for wellness policy Director. Since the onset of the pandemic, black women for wellness has had the opportunity to run a now bi weekly food distribution program in Los Angeles and Stockton, where we offer community Members organic, fresh meals and produce.

This has deepened our understanding of the devastating impact of food insecurities on our communities, particularly on black mamas and birthing people. In California, black mamas bear the disproportionate burden of poor maternal health outcomes, being more than twice as likely to experience severe injury and three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes.

Access to healthy and affordable food, which is shaped by the presence and types of grocery stores in our neighborhood, is critically important to ensure positive health outcomes for pregnant women and birthing people. As it stands, black birthing people experience inequitable access to healthy and affordable foods, which impacts the ability to achieve proper nutrition before, during, and after pregnancy. In fact, blackbirding people experience food insecurities at a rate 2.5 times higher than white birthing people. In California.

Food insecurity during pregnancy is associated with a gamut of negative outcomes for mamas and babies, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, iron deficiency, postpartum depression, preterm birth, Low birth weight, and maternal and infant death, just to name a few. Furthermore, women who experience poorer maternal health outcomes at an increased risk for reoccurrences of these health outcomes in future pregnancies, in addition to chronic disease later in life, the structural and environmental conditions with neighborhoods play important roles in shaping the health behaviors of our community.

And for black pregnant people and babies, structural barriers to food access, likely abrupt closures of grocery stores, have grave implications for health outcomes.

Thank you. If you'd wrap it up, please.

Thank you so much. So in this Bill, for those reasons, I respectfully urge that you vote aye and this critically important Bill. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much. Others in support, please approach the microphone.

Thank you. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde group representing the Consumer Federation of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.

... for the greater Sacramento Urban League and support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's now hear from the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1089, please approach the microphone. Or if you'd like to sit at the table, you can do so as well. So. Okay, could I ask your witnesses to return to the audience? And then we'll have the opponents take their positions at the table. Thank you. Whoever would like to go first? Thank you.

I'll go ahead. Good morning, Mister chair, Committee and Members, Lindsay Gullahorn here today with capital advocacy on behalf of the California Retailers Association's Community Pharmacy Coalition. First, I just want to acknowledge the amendments that went into print yesterday, which we feel make great strides in the right direction toward making this Bill workable, and also very much appreciate the authors and sponsors willingness to work with us. Unfortunately, today, we remain opposed to SB 1089 unless it's amended to address some of our remaining concerns first.

Also, our Members are not opposed to closure notification, nor do they disagree with the intent of the Bill. And while we do appreciate the notice requirements in yesterday's amendments being reduced to 60 days, which is more consistent with the Warren act, our Members continue to have concerns about the number of notices required and lack of clarity around how these notices should be handled, particularly with respect to notifying patients about where their prescriptions will go in the event of a closure.

Pharmacies in particular are licensed and regulated by the Board of Pharmacy and must adhere to specific requirements for the storage and dispensing of drugs, patient privacy and notice to the board upon closure. It's very important for pharmacies to be selective in their communications to address patient privacy concerns and to ensure the safe handling of dangerous drugs. Pharmacies are required to notify the board of Pharmacy before closure and provide information about where the prescription inventory will be transferred.

In addition, the pharmacy must adhere to patient privacy protections regardless of whether or not the store is closed or is closing. So the Retailers Association is very concerned that provisions of this Bill will undermine this process and patient information they are required to protect. Our Members are required to protect.

So we would encourage looking to the board of pharmacy process for pharmacy closures to ensure there are realistic notice requirements that are most relevant to patients and their employees that do not impede any closure processes already in place through regulatory oversight. So, again, due to these concerns, we remain opposed unless amended respectfully, but also are committed to working with the author and the sponsor should the Bill move forward today. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Daniel Conway, on behalf of the California Grocers Association, thank you all. I want to acknowledge the amendments that were made and really want to thank the Senator for having this conversation around food access. It's the conversation that we at the grocers are always happy to be a part of. That being said, we're here today in strong opposition to 1089 because we see it as being unnecessary and redundant.

As was just alluded to, we have existing state and federal law that provides much of the current or much of the notice that's contemplated in this legislation is already in statute. So we see that there's really no need to move forward with redundant legislation. More importantly, grocery store closures are rare. Typically, if a grocery store is closing, it's because they've opened a new location nearby to serve the same set of customers.

Or that community has, for any number of reasons, proven to be unable to sustain that grocery store. In those situations where a community can't sustain a grocery store, either because. Well, either because one's never located there or an existing one can't sustain itself, those are the conversations we need to be having, right. About how do we address food deserts and how do we prevent food deserts. This Bill, while well intentioned, does nothing to improve that food access.

It does nothing to bring grocery stores into underserved communities. Right now, there's three other bills moving. Senator Rubio, Assemblymember Nugyen, Assembly Member Irwin. All have food desert bills that are going to proactively improve food access.

My concern with this Bill is it will ultimately have a chilling effect on grocery store openings, because not only will it create another barrier for stores to have to contemplate in when they open, but they'll have to think about the fact that in a community that might be kind of on the margins of being able to sustain a store, they might at some point have to have an uncomfortable conversation with that community about why a store doesn't work. Work.

And that's my final point with this kind of notice and the situation that it would create. If a grocery store isn't able to sustain itself in a community, that's a symptom of probably greater problems. Right. And challenges and needs for an investment in that community.

And so in a situation where a grocery store is closing and having to leave that community and issue these types of notice, what it's going to trigger is basically a 60 day conversation with community Members, policymakers, about why it doesn't make sense to do business. There's. Which would ultimately have a chilling effect and make it harder for future retailers to come in. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you very much.

All right, before we take the me toos in opposition, I want to establish a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, if you would call the rule for proofs of establishing a quorum.

Umberg. Here. Umberg. Here. Wilk Allen. Allen. Here. Ashby. Ashby. Here. Caballero. Caballero. Here. Durazo Gonzalez. Laird. Laird. Here. Min Niello. Here. Niello. Here. Wahab, you have a quorum.

All right. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. All right, let's now turn to those who oppose to SB 1089. If you'd approach micro, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Thank you, Mister chair. Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, respect the author's amendments. Still an opposed position to the Bill.

All right, thank you. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce opposed. Thanks.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approached the microphone in opposition to SB 1089, let's bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members. Yes, Senator Caballero

Thank you very much. Let me just say that I appreciate what you're trying to doing do here, and I appreciate the amendments that have been proposed and accepted. There's two separate issues, and I just want to be clear about what we're doing. I served in local government, and I served communities where we were desperately trying to get stores in, and it was a tough nut to crack. It's not easy.

And so we don't want to do anything that's going to set us up for failure to get those stores to come in. We were told you had to allow them to serve liquor, which the neighborhood did not want, and that was the additional battle that we fought. Anyway, my point is this one is the issue of notice to the employees and to the community, and I think that's really important.

Employees have the right to know when their job is going to end or they're going to have to commute, and that may upend a lot of things that they have organized in their life. And so I think the 60 day notice is appropriate. The issue of nutrition is a different issue because the challenge we have is to have people understand. I mean, if you don't have any money, you buy the cheapest thing, and the cheapest things are the worst things for you because they're processed foods.

And so a big part of what we have to do is figure out, do we support the mom and pop stores so they have refrigerators and can keep things in their store that are fresh, or do we try to do it through the big stores that are not sensitive to maybe what the neighborhood really needs?

What's been the solution in the Latino communities have been the Latino stores that have come in, and I won't name them because we're in a Senate hearing, but in many instances, they replace the other stores that leave and they come in and they offer food choices that the neighborhood wants, and then they become very busy, and the change is significant. I want to think outside the box a little bit at some future date and say, what are the things that the changes that might be appropriate?

And I don't think it's a bad idea to have a conversation with the neighborhood about what are we missing what would bring you into the store that appeals to a food taste that appeals to the people in the neighborhood to keep this store, hiring people from the neighborhood, and also doing well. So I'm going to support your Bill today.

But I think there's, I want to be sure that we're not, we're not saying by keeping these stores here that the health of people is improved, because what we know is that some of the programs that WIC does are really tremendously important because they teach people how to cook fresh food. And for many communities, the cooker in the family doesn't know how to use that. And I can testify my mother was a really good cook, but those vegetables were when I was growing up.

And it was mostly because she came from the desert. Right. What do you know about living in a Latino community in the desert? So anyway, I'm going to support you Bill today.

Thank you, Mister chair. We heard this Bill on the Labor Committee, and in that discussion I suggested that there were certain parts that were within the purview of judiciary and sort of suggested that there might be some conversations about the private right of action. And I just want to acknowledge that the author addressed those comments that were made in labor in this Committee. So I will support the Bill. All right.

Yeah, I just, well, first of all, I'd love to hear from Mister Conway. He was wrapping up. And I just want to get a better sense of your sense of some of these food desert concerns that have been raised, because I think they're very real and would love to hear the grocer's perspective on that and how this Bill interacts with that concern. Sure.

Thank you, Senator. You know, I've had the fortunate experience of being Chief of Staff to the mayor here of Sacramento. So I've seen firsthand how much communities really fight to bring grocery stores in, that this is something that not only has a real material benefit to people just in terms of feeding them, but it also, it's a recognition that your community that like, that you've got this thing. And so grocery store openings are a good thing. And I think issues around food access and food deserts are something that I know this Legislature spent a lot of time on this Administration has.

Well, and so right now I look at a couple of efforts that I referenced, Senator Rubio's Bill, which would use grants and tax incentives to actually put grocery stores in food deserts. I think that's the kind of proactive legislation that could really do a lot to bring stores to neighborhoods that need them. But I also want to compliment my friends at UFCW because they're working with Senator Wicks to come up with a master plan to look at food deserts and food access.

So I think it's things like that where we can come at this both comprehensively, but also being very smart at kind of the micro level and going community by community. But I think there's things that we can do at the state and the local level that can really bring stores and bring food and bring access to communities.

My concern with this Bill is that ultimately it's redundant in that a lot of the warnings and the notice requirements already exist in statute, and that ultimately it's going to have a chilling effect on grocers coming into neighborhoods because they're going to be concerned about having a difficult conversation on the back end.

Can I just ask the Senator or the sponsor just about this chilling effect question or incentive and on the other side, the incentivization question, because, I mean, we are dealing with very serious access challenges in many parts of our state. And how are you incorporating these kinds of business decisions into your thinking about the Bill so that we're not doing anything with. And I understand there's a lot of really good reasons in terms of worker information that motivate this Bill.

We also want to make sure we're not inadvertently impacting store openings or closures in a lot of vulnerable areas. So how do we. I'd love to hear your thinking about this chilling effect, incentivizing balance as you go through the, as you work on the Bill.

Well, one, thank you for the question, and thank you to all of my fellow Senators for their comments. To your point, Senator Allen? I think Senator Caballero's message was that this is a comprehensive issue, and it's going to require a lot of strategies to address food deserts. They didn't just happen yesterday. The research shows it's been part of the history of discrimination, the history of disinvestment, the history of removing and stripping assets from urban cores where the majority of black residents of California lives.

And the result is, in my community in LA County, black people die 17 years sooner than anyone else. 17 years sooner than anyone else. So when we think about the solution, it's all of the above. It's the understanding of the value of healthy foods. Because in south LA, there are, I think in south central core, there are three restaurants that you could actually sit down and eat your food. Everyone else has the checkout counter where you have to stand up and take your food to go.

So I say this all to say that it's a deep challenge. And what I have appreciated about working with the grocery store sector, with black communities that are advocating for black health and food access and with the grocers is that this is the minimum we can do, is just to say when a mother is coming to get formula for her baby, she doesn't come and face a clothes store, or seniors coming to get their vital life saving medications, that they don't face a closed store.

The minimum we can do in our partnership, because these businesses don't just exist by themselves. Communities have contributed. They've spent millions in these businesses. They have created a good workforce that also brings profit to the business. So this is really about partnership. And so this Bill is about as partners. The basic thing we can do is to notify a community and to notify the workers.

So my Bill is addressing what I think is one of the things that, from the reparations task force, three years of deep study and analysis, is that the first thing we need to do is to just address the wound.

And that is let's provide real notification and let's provide a way that information is shared so that communities that require a lot of logistical support when it comes to transportation, when it comes to subsidies and needing to make sure that certain programs are accepted, when it comes to communities being able to access the metatransit or whatever it is that's necessary, that that information is there. So when you, so your question about how do we deal with closures, you're saying why the grocery stores are closing.

Let's let Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Finish.

So your question, I'm trying to make sure I'm getting to the question of why, what are we doing to address the fleeing of grocery stores from our communities? How do we address that?

No, my best understanding, Mister Conway, maybe can clarify the comment that was made was a potential chilling effect on new investment by grocery sector into traditionally underserved communities because they're concerned about the, you know, about the requirements that this Bill might impose in a way that would give them second thought before moving into neighborhoods where there's already, for whatever reason, been a lack of investment.

Well, I will let my, the sponsors answer the more technical questions, but I want to say the grocery store industry has created a chilling effect in our communities as hundreds of stores have closed. Crenshaw Boulevard is a wide and vibrant boulevard, and we are left with one unionized grocery store, one in this corridor where there used to be three and so, and we're serving living around this, hundreds of thousands of single family homes and multifamily dwellings. So I say this.

We have had a chilling effect, and it's been a chilling effect since the eighties as grocery stores went to the suburbs to support those families and consolidated what was left in the urban core. And now we're facing, you know, the conversation that the good Senator mentioned. We're faced with what are the ways that we can incentivize. This Bill is a common sense Bill in its real partnership and its care for communities to give notification.

And I think that this Bill does not create anything beyond what our communities deserve, which is fair notification and an opportunity to deal with situating their lives to be able to get access to good care. I want to continue to work with all of you in the Legislature to address how do we bring grocery stores into our community communities? How do we create good jobs and provide healthy foods.

I think that is an ongoing struggle and fight that we have to commit to because it is a right to have that access in your neighborhood. It is an absolute right. And when it is removed, you also must have fair notice. So that's what this Bill is about. And I'll hand it over to.

I think that answers the question is best to give me answers. Yeah, I'm being yelled. I gotta go present it in GO. But anyway, I totally hear you. I hope that you'll engage in conversation with the grocer is just to.

Well, we have been, we've been working very closely with them .

Because there are, you know, they're two separate issues. Right. There's the broader issue of the food deserts, which is a massive one that you've articulated. Well, how do we ensure that we address that challenge? And they're saying that they're worried about this maybe exacerbating that challenge. I understand. Obviously, you feel that way. Hopefully, you'll engage in dialogue, trying to figure out some ways to ensure that we're not doing anything with this Bill that could exacerbate the problem. That's all I'm doing. Same.

Let me ask, just a quick follow on. I think Senator Allen is saying there's two aspects. One, you don't want stores to, food stores or pharmacies to close. And two, you would like more food stores and more pharmacies to actually engage in the community, to actually build stores in the community. Is that accurate?

I believe these things are intersectional. They're intersectional. Notice. Notice and food access go together.

But you want stores, you want more grocery stores in the community.

Absolutely.

All right.

Absolutely.

So the question I think that Senator Allen was trying to raise is, do you think that this Bill create. I'm going to support it, but do you think that this Bill creates a disincentive? And if not, why not?

No, this Bill does not create a disincentive, because like I said, this is a business operates with supportive community, and notifying your partners in any instance is necessary, but particularly when your partners are vulnerable, communities that have supported that business. So I don't see these things as too separate. I think these are intersectional. And certainly I will sit down with any grocery store that wants to come into south central Los Angeles and provide fresh groceries and good jobs. That's our job.

That's my role as a Legislator. But my role is to also make sure that communities who have invested in these businesses, that we are properly notified when they decide to leave these vital. Leave our communities with these vital services. So I just want. I don't think these are all separate. I think it's integrated and one supports the other.

All right, Senator Ashby, then. Senator Wahab. Senator Ashby, thank you.

Thank you. And you or me. I asked Ben Allen to walk slow because I have to get to Gio, too, but, you know, his legs are a lot longer than mine. I want to make a couple of comments, though. I'm going to vote. I'm going to support your Bill today. But I do think that.

And I probably wouldn't have with the right of private action, but having that private right of action removed makes it easier for me to wrap my mind around, I think, what I want to try to convey, and I might ask Mister Conway for help, who I know very well, because when he was the chief staff to the mayor, I was the vice mayor, and he. I know he represents the grocers, but forget that for a second.

It took us over a decade to get a grocery store into Del Paso Heights, and it wasn't a union grocery store. We tried and tried and tried and tried. Alan Warren, me, Kevin Johnson, Rick Jennings. We were all fighting, fighting. We finally got one right. And I don't have any doubt that you are righteous 100% in your position that a grocery store that's already established that's going to leave should be working with that community. Absolutely.

Not only on the jobs loss, but the pharmacy and the food and all of that. I think what I'm concerned about, what I'm hearing from a few other people, is for a grocery store that's not in your community yet, that Crenshaw Boulevard, that you only have one to get a couple more. This Bill is going to make them think twice. I'm just going to say this.

I wouldn't want this Bill in my place in Del Paso Heights or Oak park when I'm trying to recruit somebody there, because they're going to say to me, it's extra hard because if we have to leave, you have in here this notice of closure where I'm going to have to have this tough conversation with the community about why I can't stay there anymore. Because I can't. We're not making enough money. I think preemptively, before they even choose the community, this Bill might make it harder.

It's an additional barrier. It's already extremely difficult. If you've been on local government some, that's what you're hearing from us, like, ooh, I've had that fight. That's a hard fight. One more, you know, making that hill just a few inches higher, it's just gonna make it even harder to get over to get those stores. But I know what you're trying to do here.

You know, it's just, if it wasn't a down budget year, I'd be telling you, scrap all of this and ask for subsidies for grocery stores in these communities, which I know you would support, and probably the grocers would, too. But I agree. We have to do something to deal with. It's not just the grocery stores. It's farmers markets and open spaces and parks that are safe and the whole thing.

And you are so nobly going after all of it, which is why I'm going to support this today. But I just want you to consider, as it's moving forward, hearing about how maybe you could reword some of it. Maybe you just have that for existing grocery stores. Maybe it's not new ones that come on. I don't know. But whatever you figure out as the Bill moves through, just don't make it harder for yourself and for those local entities to recruit.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, do you want to respond in your close or right now?

I will respond in my close, but I just want to give, because I just wanted to give my technical witness to answer some of these questions.

These are all really great questions. I don't know if this is on. There you go. I mean, I definitely think that this food desert issue is something that is multi pronged. It will take a lot of different pieces of legislation to try to address it. But I think it's important to note in terms of the chilling effect.

It's the closure that's the chilling effect. It's not the notice. The notice part is really important because we need to mitigate the. The health impacts of a closure to the community. But I don't see how giving just 60 days prior notice to the community has any more of a chilling effect than just the closure by itself, because that in of itself already raises some notice to the community about why it might be hard to survive there.

So, again, this Bill specifically trying to mitigate the health impacts already in a food desert is extremely important, especially when people are relying on prescriptions. Potentially, it's their only source to find fresh fruits and vegetables. They need to figure out how to plan for where they're going to get their next prescription, where they're going to get their next grocery.

So, just to be clear, you don't think this will be a factor for, for example, a grocery store chain or a pharmacy chain in deciding where to locate? You don't think this will impact their decision?

I don't see how this would have any impact their decision any more than just the closure itself.

I see. Okay, let me. And Mister Conway, you'll get a chance here in a second. Let me turn to Senator Wahab. And let me, before we turn to Senator Wahab, just make an announcement. I know that we've had at least one author pop in after this Bill. I assume this Bill will come to a vote, and then we will break until 1:30 and then we'll come back and continue with our schedule. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I was talking to some of my colleagues, and having served on local City Council. So I just kind of want to give a little bit of background on how things have gone just in real life. You know, I have a small to medium sized city in the Bay Area that's largely a black and brown community, largely a less affluent city. In fact, probably the least affluent in my entire district. And they've always.

The community has always wanted a healthy food store option, like Trader Joe's, whole foods or something. Right? And historically, they were never able to get it. One of the arguments is, you know, some of labor wants a food store that is union. And that was a battle 10 years prior to me getting on council and so forth.

And I served on the Economic Development Committee, which is the whole goal is to track and see what type of incentives and what work can we do as a City Council to attract businesses. Having had the conversations with a lot of grocery stores, and what makes it more attractive to a store to come into the town, you know, a neighboring city, the City of Fremont, the largest in my district, is far more affluent. Right, right.

Average household is over six figures in income and so much more. They had a sprouts, a whole foods, and a trader Joe's. Right. And you think about, okay, why, when we're not even that far apart? The Bay Area is a very regional area, so it's very close together, close knit in a lot of ways.

And the stores, their response was that when they look at a City of to where they're going to go, that they're actually looking at the education level, not necessarily income level, not necessarily demographics in race or anything like that, but education level because of the fact that less affluent individuals are usually on the go, have multiple jobs, and usually have to purchase something pretty quick to get to their next job or their next activity.

And that was kind of disappointing to see as to that's how they measure what makes a city more attractive. We also identified to see whether or not we had food deserts. Right. And the food desert definition in particular, of roughly a mile away, of like, is food accessible to folks? And you have stores that are these big chains like Target that now sell tomatoes and milk and some of the basic necessities that any family needs. And you're seeing these efforts now.

I fully agree with the fact that businesses need to announce when they're going to be closed because part of the Economic Development Committee we knew, hey, we're in talks, this business is going to close for X, Y or Z. Maybe they had a lot of issues. Maybe they're transitioning to, instead of brick and mortar, they're trying to transition to e commerce. A lot of people are delivering food. They don't even want to go to the store. So there's a lot there.

Now, I agree with the focus of the Bill as to the announcement and so forth. But I also, the piece that concerns me a little bit, especially for a representative of a smaller town that literally is struggling to compete with our neighboring cities, as I mentioned. Right. To announce exactly why they had to shut down sometimes can be used negatively in the sense that another business will not enter that area. Right. And that's not what we want either.

So, for example, even in our downtown, that had a lot of crumbling businesses and so forth, we, as the city, invested heavily on infrastructure, on piping and sewage, on, you name it, to make it more desirable to also invest in fiber optics, to say, okay, we're going to invest in, you know, 21st business technology and so forth. So I support this Bill and I'm going to move this Bill so in due time, whenever appropriate.

However, I just want to highlight that as this Bill moves forward, and I know you're going to have to eventually deal with it in the Assembly and the rest of the Senate Floor and so forth, I really just, you know, want to highlight the potential consequences that are not really there yet. Right.

There's a lot of concerns that businesses have, a lot of concerns where the smaller cities that are literally wanting healthy food, options that struggle to compete with their neighboring cities that may be more affluent, but also just addressing being more attractive to a business to begin with. So I just want to highlight that as a keynote of like something that I'm interested in seeing as the, this Bill moves forward and I'll move when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. All right, other questions. Senator Durrazo.

I just want to add one short comment. This is being looked at by some folks as something that would hurt the community, something that would hurt the possibilities of grocery stores or pharmacies coming in the future. And I just think it's the exact opposite. What it does is give stability to that community. And I think everyone looks more positive on a community in terms of investments when that community is stable.

And if you've stabilized, because I mean, hopefully many more other businesses would look at and say, zero, I could count on this business being here. I could count on, I could rely on this. And if something were to happen, we would all know about it. We could all plan together about it. We would not be pulled out of left field with the damage and not knowing what it would do. So I see it exactly the opposite, and I commend you and we'll support the Bill.

Thank you. Other comments? Questions? So, and I promise, Mister Conway, we get a chance to respond. Proponents say this would not have, this would not be a factor in analyzing whether a store would be located in a particular community. Your response to that?

Yeah, thank you, Chairman. And thank you to the Senators, because this was a great discussion where folks said things, made points better than I was able to make them myself.

I appreciate you delineating between the openings and the closures, because I think when it comes to closures, I think there's basically agreement around the need to notify employees in the community, because that already exists in law. It already exists in state and federal law. So we're not here to fight over notice because it's there. And that's why I kind of led with the fact that the notice piece is redundant.

I think the opening the conversation around what it takes to open more stores is what's critical here. And I really appreciate the conversation. And I appreciate your comments, Senator Durazzo, and some of the things. I'm sorry, Senator Small cuevas and a bunch of us have to go. So if basically what it incentivizes is safer, Betsy. So rather than looking at a marginalized community and saying, well, maybe we can make it work, you're going to say, you know what?

I'm going to stick to the community where I know these stores will work. And I appreciate your comments, Senator Wahab, about the broader factors. I mean, we have our big city mayors here today talking about public safety and homelessness. Like, if we want to bring stores to communities, we got to look at all of these factors and create.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Just one other thing to consider. The point raised by Senator Wahab is if a store has to announce it's closing because of public safety concerns, just ask you to consider whether or not that helps or hurts other stores coming into the community just for your consideration. All right. Would you like to close? Is there a motion? Senator Wahab has moved the Bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, colleagues, for this debate and conversation. And like I said, we are continuing to work through all of the points that have been raised by the opposition. But remember, this is about communities. This is about vulnerable communities.

And to the good Senator's point, how do we as a community have the notification that we need and the timeline to be able to make adjustments to, one, rally behind our businesses, and two, making sure that the local community is able to access the services that they need in real time. We've been pushing for grocery stores to come way before this Bill.

We have been advocating for grocery stores in south LA for the last 10-15 years, and I believe this Bill is a win across the board because it acknowledges the impact on communities and it acknowledges the need for more grocery stores and services in our communities. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. It's been moved by Senator Wahab. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number 16, SB 1089. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg? Aye. Wilk. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero. I. Durazo. Durazo. I. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird? I. Min. Niello. Niello. No. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Five to one.

51. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, so we're gonna be in recess now. Until 1:30. Thank you very much.

Our channel.

File item number 24, SB 1303. All right, Senator Caballero, file number 24, SB 1303. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members for the opportunity to present SB 1303, an important bill to help increase accountability on public works projects. First, let me thank the Chair and committee staff for their work on this bill and accept the committee amendments. And as outlined in the analysis, the labor code governing local governmental public works projects mandates that all workers receive prevailing wage. Public agencies must ensure compliance with these laws, but increasingly, this enforcement is delegated to private, for-profit, third-party compliance companies.

If the compliance companies find evidence of a violation, they can take punitive action against the contractor by withholding payments without due process. The compliance companies function with minimal and inconsistent processes despite receiving public dollars to do this work. Additionally, the lack of rules regarding conflict of interest and prior affiliations with contractors can compromise enforcement integrity.

This bill will ensure that if a public agency contracts with a private contractor to complete a public works project and delegates the enforcement of labor compliance to a for-profit third-party compliance company, laws are in place to protect the integrity of the process. SB 1303 will require third-party compliance companies to disclose any conflicts of interest to the Division of Labor Standards enforcement to awarding agencies and will prohibit third-party compliance companies from receiving contracts if conflicts of interest exist.

The bill will establish a structured process for third-party compliance companies to follow if they believe a violation has occurred, ensuring fairness and transparency in the enforcement process. And finally, the bill mandates that awarding agencies and third-party compliance companies seek resolution of disputed labor law violations by conferring with contractors before withholding funds and stalling projects.

With me today to testify in support of the bill and help address any questions is Elmer Lizardi from the California Labor Federation and Rob Carrion from the Operating Engineers Local Three and California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers.

Thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Labor Federation. The federation supports efforts to enforce California's labor laws on every work site, especially on public works program projects where private companies are receiving public dollars to do this work. SB 1303 will help achieve this goal by increasing accountability of for-profit labor compliance entities, which oversee certain public works projects. Under existing law, public agencies that awards funds for public works projects are tasked with ensuring that parties comply with labor standards.

Recently, as Senator Caballero has mentioned, we have seen an increase in these public agencies contracting out this incredibly important compliance work to for profit third party companies. Unfortunately, these companies operate with little to no state regulation, and this hurts contractors. The state and construction workers who depend on public works projects for their livelihoods. For example, one of the major gaps in current law, as mentioned, is that these for-profit compliance groups can oversee projects even if they have problematic conflicts of interest.

This leads to private compliance groups subjectively enforcing laws in ways that unfairly stall projects or abruptly freeze the funding that pays construction workers for their hard work. SB 1303 brings much-needed accountability for these private compliance groups by requiring them to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest to awarding bodies. With these simple fixes, this bill will help ensure that these companies and the public agencies that contracts work to them are fully accountable and effectively enforcing labor law to protect public dollars and workers in California. Thank you. And we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Next witness.

My mike - yeah, there it is. Mister Chairman. Thank you and members of the board, Rob Carrion with the Operating Engineers Local Union Number Three, and on their behalf and the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud co-sponsors of SB 1303, which will provide needed clarity in situations in which an awarding agency contracts with a third party to perform labor compliance monitoring on their behalf.

Existing law, pursuant to Labor Code section 1726, authorizes awarding bodies of public works projects to withhold payments from contractors in situations in which the awarding body determines that public work laws aren't being properly followed. And I would note that this is great policy that helps ensure our strong public works laws are being adhered to. However, there has been an increase of awarding agencies turning over this responsibility to private third parties, who then take the powerful step of withholding funds from contractors on public works projects.

It's important to note that these third-party for-profit compliance groups are not themselves parties to collective bargaining agreements and have limited knowledge about items that are covered in them. This has led to high road union contractors who are following the law and the terms of their CBAS having funds withheld from the projects they are working on.

As my colleague mentioned, SB 1303 would require for-profit compliance groups to disclose if a conflict of interest exists and would clarify that awarding agencies cannot utilize these groups in situations in which a conflict exists. The bill would also establish a process whereby for-profit compliance groups shall be required to meet with parties of collective bargaining agreements prior to withholding funds and notify the division of labor standards enforcement of their intent to withhold funds.

With that being said, SB 1303 seeks to provide statutory guidance for the use of for-profit labor compliance groups by awarding bodies. We appreciate your time, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All those who wish to testify in support of SB 1303, please line up at the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

My name is Jesse Gree, I'm an engineer, and I support this bill.

Thank you, Chair and members. Mike Monaghan of the State Building Trades in support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approached through the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1303, please approach either the table or the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the table or microphone, let's turn to the committee. If there are questions by committee members or comments. Questions or comments. Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion? Senator Caballero, I think you've accepted the amendments, is that right? You did? Okay. Thank you.

All right, anyone like to make a motion? Would you like to make a motion? Senator Durazo? Thank you. All right, Senator Durazo has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

This is file item number 24, SB 1303. The motion is do-pass as amended to Senate appropriations.

4-0. Put that on call. All right, thank you very much, Senator Caballero. I see Senator Wiener here. I don't think we'll take Senator Wiener out of order. Here's what we're gonna do is if you're an author and you appear, we will take next in order by file order. If we have no authors, then I'm going to look to the committee because we've got a number of authors who are on the committee, and I'll ask them to start to present their bills.

So, Senator Wiener, is it item number 17, SB 1037, that you wish to present today? Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Okay, Mister Chair, thank you for working for you and your staff, for working with us on SB 1037. And I'm happy to accept the Committee amendment outlined in the bill analysis. I'm presenting SB 1037, a measure sponsored by Attorney General Bonta. Colleagues, as you know, because we've all gone through this together in recent years, we have taken very significant and impactful steps in advancing housing production at all income levels in California and making it easier and faster to get new homes zoned for permitted built.

We've also made sizable financial investments in subsidized affordable housing, and these efforts are beginning to bear food. It's going to take time, but we're moving in a positive direction. A large majority of cities in California are either applying or making good faith efforts to comply with state housing law.

Unfortunately, there is a minority, a relatively small minority, but a minority of cities in California that are not making good faith efforts and that are not just violating state housing law because they forgot to do something or they made a mistake, but are just brazenly ignoring state housing law, either refusing the grant permits for projects that are clearly required to be permitted under state law, or simply refusing to enact a compliant housing element.

Unfortunately, right now there are very few consequences for these violations of the law. Ultimately, the Attorney General has the ability to file a lawsuit against the city to force compliance. Compliance. But if the Attorney General files that lawsuit, goes all the way through the litigation, and wins, and the court enters judgment against the city, the city still has a significant period of time to come into compliance and avoid financial penalties.

So that means that cities have their only incentive to avoid litigation is not wanting to pay attorney's fees because they can force a lawsuit, enforce an entire litigation, and lose, and then still avoid penalties.

So this bill will end that incentive or that incentive to just go into litigation by saying that if the Attorney General sues you, if you go all the way through the lawsuit without settling, if judgment is entered against you, then the court will impose fines going back to the beginning of the violation. There is some of the opposition in their letters and in testimony have talked about, oh, it's just an honest mistake. An honest mistake is one that gets corrected well before litigation starts.

It's not an honest mistake when you go through an extended pre litigation period of time, lawsuits filed, the entire litigation judgment that is not a good faith on this mistake. And this will remove the incentive to violate state law and will create a big incentive to avoid litigation. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I do want to just mention one other thing, that the fines will be placed in a fund for affordable housing in that city. And so I respectfully ask for your. I vote with me today testify for from the Attorney General's Office, Janet Staniford and Francesc Marti from California YIMBY.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Committee Members. I'm Jana Staniford. I'm a legislative advocate for the Attorney General. And I have with me also today Alex Fish, who's a special assistant Attorney General for housing, who's available to help answer any technical questions you may have on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. I want to start by thanking Senator Wiener for authoring this bill, which the Attorney General is proud to sponsor. As you know, California is facing a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis.

The Legislature has passed strong laws in recent years to address this crisis, including over a dozen ministerial approval laws. But those laws will only move the needle to address the housing crisis if local governments follow them. Attorney General Rob Bonta has made enforcement of housing laws a top priority and has taken action against some of the most egregious violators. But the remedies available under existing law are not effectively deterring local governments from violating these laws in the first place.

Despite the ministerial approval laws on the books, several cities have been reluctant to process qualifying applications ministerially, instead imposing local requirements and other creative policies and practices that deviate from the clear, objective standards that the Legislature has established. This frustrates the purpose of ministerial approval lawsuit, which is to streamline approvals and build housing quickly. And while local governments are tasked with planning to meet the needs, the housing needs of their communities, there are over 200 jurisdictions that are out of compliance with housing element law.

This non compliance consumes public resources. The Attorney General could do more to advance other important state housing priorities if every jurisdiction promptly complied with a simple black and white deadline. To address these rampant compliance issues, local governments must be deterred from violating housing laws. Effective monetary penalties will serve as a deterrent and strengthen the state's hand when the Attorney General warns local governments if they're out of compliance.

And for local governments that refuse to comply, who shirk their responsibility to meet their fair share of regional and statewide housing needs, SB 1037 would allow the Attorney General to hold them quickly to account. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hello Chair Umberg, distinguished Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Francesc Marti and I'm the senior Director of strategy and government affairs at California YIMBY, a grassroots organization with over 80,000 members dedicated to ensuring that California is a place of abundant, secure, and affordable housing for all. I am here today to express our strong support for SB 1037, authored by Senator Wiener, which aims to strengthen the enforcement of California's critical housing laws.

At California YIMBY, we firmly believe that the housing laws passed by the Legislature in recent years are essential tools in addressing our state's severe housing shortage and affordability crisis. These laws, including ministerial approval laws, were designed to streamline housing production and ensure that local governments are doing their part to meet the housing needs of their communities. However, we have seen firsthand how the lack of compliance by some local governments has hindered progress towards our state's housing goals.

When cities and counties fail to process qualifying applications ministerially update their housing element, or when they impose additional local requirements, they are effectively undermining the intent of these laws and slowing down much needed housing construction. Furthermore, the fact that over 200 jurisdictions are currently out of compliance with housing element law is deeply concerning. When cities fail to adhere to these laws, they impede the state's overall ability to meet critical housing needs.

This non compliance not only obstructs potential housing process, but also perpetuates inequality in housing access and affordability. It's a cycle that deepens the crisis rather than alleviating it. It we believe that SB 1037 is a crucial step in addressing these compliance issues and ensuring that local governments are held accountable for following the law by allowing the Attorney General to seek effective monetary penalties for violations. This bill will serve.

Thank you. Would you mind wrapping it up? Excuse me, sir.

Furthermore, the funds collected from these penalties are earmarked to develop affordable housing.

Thank you very much. Okay, others in support of SB 1037, please approach the microphone.

Katherine Charles here. On behalf of Housing Action Coalition and support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus, Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of SPUR civic wealth, Green Belt Alliance and YIMBY Action in support.

Thank you. All right, if you're in opposition to SB 1037, please approach the microphone.

If you'd like to come to the table, I'll ask one of the proponents to please stand. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities. First wanted to thank the committee staff in the author's office for the proposed committee amendments on SB 1037, as well as the continued conversations we have had with the author's office and the Attorney General's Office. These conversations have been very productive, and we appreciate the way the bill has been improved with the proposed committee amendments before you today. With that said, we still must respectfully oppose the measure at this time.

Cal Cites believes that the measure is headed in the right direction, but we still have concerns with Section 2B of the bill. Specifically, the language states that local land use decisions or actions that are contrary to established public policy or procedurally unfair could result in significant, overly punitive fines for local governments, including cities, that are making good faith efforts to comply with state law.

This language is extremely broad, vague, and unclear in what actions could entail punishments from the state, and gives leeway to punish good faith actors for a genuine disagreement or misunderstanding of state law without allowing them to correct the violation. Cal Cities appreciates the efforts by Senator Wiener and this committee to make sure that good faith actors are not punished for their efforts but believes that further improvements on the language are necessary to make these goals clear in the proposal. Cal Cites looks forward to those conversations and appreciates the author's willingness to continue to work with us into addressing our concerns. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any further questions on the proposal.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition to SB 1037, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it to committee. Questions by committee members? Any questions by committee members? Is there a motion by committee member? Senator Ashby moves the bill. All right, thank you, Senator Wiener, and I appreciate you working with the committee. I share some of those concerns about cities that are attempting to comply in good faith and because of one reason or another that they are thwarted in their effort.

And I know you've also attempted to address that. I look forward to additional language if you think additional language is necessary. But there are some cities, and I'm familiar with one in particular, that is in willful violation and proud thereof. So those cities need where enforcement is needed. They shouldn't get a free ride in terms of cost to all of us. Having said that, Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and we do appreciate the work on the amendment. That we're accepting today. We're not trying. This is not about punishing cities that are really trying and just having some challenges. There are. And also, just to be really clear, this is only after the Attorney General doesn't run around filing these lawsuits left and right. It's very seldom. And it's only after lots of effort by the Attorney General, by HCD, to try to help cities come into compliance. So this is a small subset of cities that have gone not just to litigation, but to court judgment against them. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Four to one. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Wiener. I see. Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla, you normally would not go next, but because you're it, you're it. So after Senator Padilla, if we're continuing to go in file order, then it would be Senator Menjivar, then Senator Skinner, and then Senator Laird.

Then Senator Laird. Then we're down to just Members of the Committee, So. All right, thank you very much. Senator Padilla, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the Committee staff for working with our staff on this Bill. Later this year, there will be national elections in several important democratic nations across the globe, including ours. Meanwhile, hostile, autocratic national governments are vastly expanding misinformation efforts to sow discord and influence our elections. The emergence of artificial intelligence has now empowered hostile actors to sow discord with incredibly realistic but fake images and even voice recordings.

AI is an extraordinarily powerful tool in the digital age, which can have enormous influence over our public discourse, and misinformation online can go viral in a matter of a few hours. The average consumer, the average person, does not have convenient tools at the moment to distinguish between content produced by a reputable news source or AI generated misinformation, or, for that matter, intentionally harvested reams of misinformation disguised as news.

Many also lack the knowledge of how to identify AI generated misinformation due to how new and how impactful this new technology is. SB 1228 would require social media platforms to request identity verification from highly influential users and influential users as defined in the draft. And note, whenever the user is authenticated or unauthenticated, this is for the benefit of the consumer of the information.

A recent article in the Washington Post uncovered thousands of Kremlin directed bots and websites flooding Europe with disinformation ahead of EU election, masquerading as legitimate news. The New York Times also recently found many news sites with Russian ties used to spread disinformation, aided by AI generated content, to fool casual readers into thinking they are reading a genuine article. Numerous studies have shown that online anonymity results in increased, unconstrained postings and aggressiveness. Many social media platforms already contain some form of identity verification.

Indeed, we only need to look, as your analysis points out, to the banking industry and the lending industry, for sound know your customer practices. I want to reiterate, this Bill does not require social media consumers to be verified, nor does it ask or seek to suppress the content of information, but rather to provide consumers of the information information as to whether the source and user putting out content is authenticated or not. With me today I have Mariko Yoshihara, with CITED, and Doctor Laura Mather, a cybersecurity expert and former CEO of Silver Trail Systems.

Alrighty. Whoever would like to go first. Miss Yoshihara. Okay.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Mariko Yoshihara, representing the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, also known as cited CITED. CITED is a new project of California common cause seeking to address election disinformation that is being turbocharged by social media, AI, and other emerging technologies. I would also like to start by reiterating what this Bill does not do. This Bill does not prohibit anonymous speech online. It does not require platforms to force users to verify their identity, and it does not prevent users from using pseudonyms or no name at all when they're engaging in online speech.

This Bill simply requires platforms to seek to verify the identity of users once they've reached a certain threshold that we have identified that we have defined as influential or highly influential, meaning that their content is being viewed by hundreds and thousands of people within a very short period of time, because that is how disinformation is spread, because people don't know who is behind the content that they're viewing, the content that they're viewing, and whether it's real or fake.

So this Bill is designed to provide users who are consuming that content with more information about whose identity is authenticated, so they can better assess whether what what they're viewing is credible and trustworthy or not. And it will also help mitigate the spread of unconstrained and frictionless mis and disinformation that is really polluting our information ecosystem and threatening the integrity of our elections and our democracy like never before. And that is our state's compelling interest. And this Bill is narrowly tailored to ensure that free speech, including anonymous speech, is protected. And for these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Thank you. Mister Chair and Members, my name is Laura Mather and I am on the Advisory Board of CITED. In addition, I was one of the first employees of eBay's trust and safety organization. And it was my job to protect eBay users, often through user verification. After that, I started my own cybersecurity company. We protected brands like Citibank, Bank of America, e Trade, Apple, Microsoft. I've actually done the jobs of the people in the opposition, so I understand exactly the place that they're in.

Mostly, I want to respond to that opposition. You need to understand that these companies make their money by verifying people so that they can target them for advertising. This is what they do. For them to say that this Bill will impede their ability to determine whether or not to verify people, that's a little bit ironic, given that's their whole job. They need to know who people are so that they can target them for advertising.

In addition, I've worked with multiple brands through my two decades in this space, and I can tell you that these organizations are already verifying their users. They need to know if a user is a bot, they need to know if they're under the age of 13, they need to know if you all live in Sacramento. Again, so that they can target them. The fact that they have teams performing these types of verifications means that this is not a challenge for them.

And then when it comes to even deeper verification, they're already doing this as well. If an advertiser wants to post ads on their platform, if a user wants to get paid for their content, these platforms are already verifying them because they don't want to get defrauded by their own users. They know how to do this. They know how to store the data. So in summary, having worked in 20 years in this space, I can tell you that these platforms, they know how to comply to this. They're already doing it in the cases that benefit them. We're just asking them to do that in the few cases that will benefit our democracy. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support of SB 1228, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. If you're opposed to SB 1228, please approach the microphone. All right. Would you like seat at the table? Yes, you would? Okay. Thank you. Whichever seat you'd like, please proceed.

Chair Umberg, Members of the Committee, my name is Khara Boender, testifying on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association in respectful opposition to SB 1228. CCIA is an international not for profit trade association with about two dozen members from a range of communications and technology firms. While we appreciate the recent amendments to SB 1228, the Bill still raises significant concerns. First, it is unclear what constitutes satisfying the Bill's requirement to seek to verify influential users.

... online services employ tools and features to protect the identity or anonymity of their users, and businesses aim to tailor these appropriately to the nature of the service and an online community the service is trying to create and foster. SB 1228 would bifurcate the online population into authenticated and non authenticated users, which could threaten online anonymity. Many users opt to use pseudonyms or no name at all when engaging in online speech.

These users may be speaking about sensitive topics, represent dissident opinions under oppressive regimes, or be part of a marginalized community, among other reasons. Anonymous speech is a long held value and tradition in the United States, dating back to the federalist papers. Protecting anonymity of online speech carries forward such traditions and productions to allow for open and free expression.

This Bill risks disincentivizing online anonymity and would suggest that non authenticated accounts be viewed as less safe or legitimate, especially under the requirement to show for at least 2 seconds prior to the rest of a post being available, a message akin to this user is unauthenticated. This could appear to serve as a red flag warning for other users, for any unauthenticated users content. User authentication requires additional data collection and can create security risks.

This inherently requires companies to collect additional sensitive information and under this Bill, a government issued ID. While many platforms implement strong industry standard security measures, nefarious actors are constantly evolving and advancing new tactics to circumvent these protections. Because the explicit requirement to provide a government issued identification is limited to the most influential users, it creates a known and particularly appealing honey pot of information.

Could you wrap it up, please?

I appreciate your consideration of these comments and stand ready to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition to SB 1228, please approach.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, respectfully opposed.

Austin Heyworth on behalf of the Internet Works Association, opposed and will continue to be working with the author. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brady Van Engelen on behalf of Cal Chamber, opposed.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Caballero.

So let me just say that I don't understand some of the arguments in opposition, and I guess I don't understand some of the statements about, I mean, it's a, it's, as I understand it, it's a very simple Bill. Either you're authenticated or you're not. And for those people that don't want to authenticate themselves, who just say, no, I'm not going to, I'm not going to give you the information you need to be authenticated, then people can wonder why they're unauthenticated and maybe doubt the veracity of what they have to say. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong.

I'm just saying that's, at least as I understand it, this is a sunshine type of Bill, and I get the dissidents and the need for privacy for some of these, and that's fine, but then they're unauthenticated. And I guess I'm just really struggling with this whole idea that it's hard to do and that it is intrusive some way in the privacy of the individual. It seems to me once you put your name and your face out there, there's some privacy loss right there.

And I don't understand, quite frankly, people posting a lot of personal information, like everything that's going on in their life, because it seems to me that they give up their privacy concerns when they do that. Right. So anyway, I'm just, I'm struggling. Maybe you can explain a little bit more why you see this as a real intrusion.

And I, I'm all for people having the right to say whatever they want to say, but to the extent that it becomes targeted and it's hurtful and it is used as a tool to fool and confuse people, which is what it seems to me has happened in the political arena, the political and the social arena, because you have all these conspiracy theories, authenticating people just seems to make sense to me. I don't know if there's a, if you understand the question.