Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Before we begin presentation of today's bills, I'm going to. Well, we're not going to do a quorum quite yet. What we are going to do is we're going to announce that we only have 68 bills on our agenda today. I'm sorry, I'm correct. It's 60. They're dropping fast. 65 bills on our agenda today.

We'll be in state capital, room 112, all day today. It was previously announced that we would be in room 113. We're nothing. We're in 112 and we'll be here all day. We'll not be breaking for lunch or moving rooms. So once again, we'll be here in room 112.

I want to thank the Judiciary Committee staff for the work that they've been doing. Yes. You may note they've been going on very little sleep over the last probably month. They've been working nonstop these past five weeks analyzing over 200 Assembly bills, which is about 50 more Assembly bills than normally are referred to this Committee.

We're proud to be so popular. And a special thank you to our assistants, Margaret Buxton and Erica Porter, for all the work they've done over the course of the last year, but in particular last month in council, Ian Doherty, Allison Meredith, Amanda Matson and our deputy chief counsel, Christianity Karpiewski and of course, Margie Estrada, chief counsel.

I'm lucky and grateful to have them on our staff. In fact, the State of California is lucky and grateful to have them. Employees of the State of California and the State Senate. Let me go through some housekeeping measures. File itemnumber seven, AB 1333, by Assemblymember Ward, has been pulled.

File item, number eight, AB 491, by Assemblymember Wallace, has been pulled. File I'm number nine, AB 1780, by Assembly Member Ting, has been pulled. File number 32. Excuse me. File item number 32, AB 2584 by Assemblymember Lee, has been pulled. File number 48, AB 2862 by Assembly Member Gipson, has been pulled.

We're now going to turn to the bills that are on today's consent calendar. We have 12 and they are as follows. [Consent Calendar] All right, so we're going to first proceed as a Subcommitee. Here are the rules for today.

They're the same as every other Committee hearing that the support side may have two witnesses, each with two minutes each. So for a total of four minutes for primary witnesses in support, followed by witnesses who may approach the microphone and provide us their name, their affiliation and their position on the Bill. Then we'll turn to the opposition.

The same will go for the opposition. Each side, each primary witness in opposition will have two minutes for a total of four minutes in opposition. And then we'll turn to opposition. Me too. Witnesses who will provide their name, their affiliation and their position on the Bill.

Now today, as you've heard quite a number of times, we're going in reverse order, meaning that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. So let us start with Mister Zbur. Assembly Member Zbur, welcome. The floor is yours. Is this the right table? Go ahead. Yes. Right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. I want to thank you for the order of the agenda today. And I'm here to present AB 2889, a measure that makes resolving labor disputes more efficient, effective and fair within the Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles.

The bill is sponsored by the Union of American Physicians in Dentists, SEIU California and AFSCME California. The Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB, currently has oversight jurisdiction over disputes between almost all public agency employers and employees. However, current law provides the City and County of Los Angeles with a local alternative to PERB oversight.

The Los Angeles local alternative has the power to investigate unfair practice charges, determine whether those charges are justified, and if so, prescribe appropriate remedies. The standard that applies to the City and County of Los Angeles gives employers an unfair leverage that is not present in other parts of the state.

This means that unions that bargain with the City and County of Los Angeles are the only public employee unions in the State of California that are not afforded the same extent of protections that other public employee unions obtain from PERB. A bit of history in 2011, the Legislature enacted protections to prohibit union busting within the jurisdiction of PERB.

That year, SB 857 prohibited PERB from awarding striped preparation expenses as damages from an unlawful strike. Due to a drafting error, the employee relations entities in the City and County of Los Angeles were expressly identified in the law, which means these protections were not expressly identified in the law, which means that these protections may not apply to unions under their jurisdiction.

Many of the activities workers routinely engage in during a contract campaign, such as membership rallies, wearing union buttons, or participating in a strike authorization vote, could be used to justify these damages. However, I think we can all agree the right to collectively bargain is not meaningful if workers cannot engage in concerted activities.

This bill not only is about aligning labor practices across the state, it's about fairness for all public sector employees in California. So AB 2889 provides PERB with exclusive initial jurisdiction over requests for injunctive relief by both the City and County of Los Angeles, just as it already has for other public agencies.

It also clarifies that local employee relations entities in the City and County of Los Angeles do not have the authority to award damages resulting from a strike because, of course, this has been transferred to PERB.

This ensures that local public sector unions in the City and County of Los Angeles have the same, the very same protection from union busting tactics that all other unions under PERB jurisdiction have enjoyed for over a decade. This bill has no registered opposition. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today are Sandra Borrero representing-- Actually it's Janice O'Malley, representing AFSCME California, and George Osborn, representing UAPD.

All right, thank you. Let's start with Ms. O'Malley.

Thank you, sir. Good morning. Janice O'Malley, legislative advocate with AFSCME California. We're also incredibly grateful, as the co-sponsors, that you have gone in reverse order.

AFSCME was the original sponsor of SB 857 13 years ago when it was authored by then Senator, now Congressman Ted Lieu, to protect every public employee in California from attacks on the right to strike and saving workers millions of dollars in false and frivolous claims.

The law was created to protect all unions from union busting tactics, as a right to collectively bargain is impaired when workers are dissuaded under threat of exorbitant damages from engaging in concerted activities such as wearing buttons or attending a rally.

The premise that an employer is entitled to strike preparation damages, including where no strike even occurred, directly, interferes with the ability of workers to exercise their rights under the law.

When AFSCME sponsored SB 857 in 2011, the assumption was that it would cover all public employees and those under the Meyers-Milias Brown Act, the act that establishes bargaining for California's municipal, county, and local special district employees.

But this bill was passed in 2011 before a court of appeal decision established PERB in the MMBA but failed to expressly identify LA Herb and La ERCOM, and therefore it is legally left unclear whether both these entities, employees in the City and County of LA, have the same rights as their union siblings in other MMBA jurisdictions.

Therefore, we ask for your support for AB 2889 to afford the same strike protection rights to LA City and LA County employees as all other public sector employees currently enjoy. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Good morning, Mister Chair. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. I just wanted to reiterate that this is a cleanup bill again for SB 857 by then Senator Liu. LA City, LA County are the only two jurisdictions that were left out in the state and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much. All right, others who wish to testify in support, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Sandra Barrera, on behalf of SEIU California, proud co-sponsors in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mister Chair, Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2889 please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members, questions, comments? Seeing none. All right, would you like to close, Assemblymember Zbur?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. At such time, I expect there'll be a motion and we'll bring it to a vote. All right, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. All right, next we have Assemblymember Wood, and I see that we're blessed with quite a number of Assemblymembers here right now.

So if we went in normal order, we would go Assemblymember Wood, who's at the table, then Assemblymember Wilson, then Assemblymember Wicks, then Assemblymember Ting. And if just for future-- Oh, yes, you know what? You're right. We need to switch the order up a little bit. Yes, I see on my playbook here. We got it.

We'll switch the order. Yes. Assemblymember Ta, then Ting. All right. All right. Assemblymember Wood, floor is yours.

I'd just like to comment that it's you actually have more Assemblymembers here than when we gavel down to start Assembly floor sessions. That's pretty amazing, Senator Umberg. And you're one shy of a quorum, which is also pretty amazing this early in the morning. So my hat's off to the Senate.

We are one shy. Thank you for noting that we are one shy of a quorum.

All right. Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I want to say thank you to the Chair for engaging with me on efforts to address the challenges of private equity and healthcare, and thank you to the members of the Committee. Several of you, I know I've spoken to personally several times.

After much thought, I have committed to the Chair that I will draft author amendments to remove for-profit acute care hospitals from the bill. If the bill passes today, those amendments will be ready before the Appropriations Committee. For-profit hospital transactions must still notify OHCA as originally required in the bill.

I do this with a great deal of disappointment. This bill is a product of many hours of discussions with Committee chairs and stakeholders, and although a number of stakeholders will not be happy with what I have described, no one will be less happy than me.

I believe strongly that we should make progress where and when we can. Once this process is in place, if the bill passes and signed by the Governor, I'm confident the Attorney General will show that the review of these transactions will not be onerous and will protect Californians from increased cost and lack of access.

AB 3129 has always been about protecting our communities, our patients, and all healthcare consumers from the potentially negative impacts of private equity transactions in healthcare. Private equity investment in healthcare has increased significantly over the past two decades.

Transactions in healthcare in 2021 totaled $83 billion, $20 billion of that in California, compared to 12 billion and 1 billion respectively, in 2005. There is significant evidence that private equity investment across all outcome measures has most often increased costs to patients or payers and had mixed to harmful impacts on quality.

Private equity's timelines are short, often three to seven years, and have occurred across the board in many areas. The transaction often used 60% to 80% debt, which then becomes a burden on the entity.

We have many examples that show private equity firms use that debt to pay dividends to themselves and their investors, while at the same time leaving those acquired on the hook for that debt. That has resulted in a number of bankruptcies across the country, while at the same time leaving investors with high rewards instead of losses.

I continue to be concerned about the effects of consolidation. When private equity purchases several practices in an area, especially in more rural areas, it can create a monopoly or close to it that uses its leverage to negotiate higher fees with health plans, in turn increasing healthcare premiums, employees and employers, and costs to patients.

This bill will not prevent these transactions, but allows the Attorney General to review them and ensure that transactions don't result in limited or no care for certain populations or access to specialty or other care. You know me, I hope.

I'm a healthcare provider that has always fought for increased access and affordable healthcare for all Californians, and I've dug into those issues deeply with much thought and commitment. We need oversight now. We can't wait. Why? Because there is none. Private equity is active in many arenas.

The donut shop where you may have stopped on your way to work this morning, the nursing home where your grandmother resides, the apartment or single family home you rent. The veterinary clinic where you take Fido and Fluffy. This is all happening at an exponential rate. This trend is no longer emerging.

It is here and it is growing every year. So I'm obliged to do what I can to keep this issue a priority. I'll get to work on the bill to address the amendments I've spoken about today and appreciate your support.

Today I have with me to testify Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw from the AG's office, joined by Emilio Varanini, who will be available to answer technical questions. And Katie Van Deynze, the Policy And Legislative Advocate from Health Access California, is our second witness.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wood. Let us establish a quorum. That ever elusive quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for purpose of establishing quorum.

[Roll call]. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you for witnessing this moment. At 08:18 a.m. the Senate Judiciary Committee has a quorum. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Wood, for your work on this bill. I know that you feel quite passionate about this subject, and you've worked very, very hard.

And I know that some of these amendments are challenging for you and the folks who are support. A couple things, just to clear it up. I know you mentioned acute care hospitals, and that's a term of art in the statute, but it's all for-profit hospitals, correct? All for-profit hospitals. All right, thank you. Okay, let's turn to your witnesses.

First witness, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate of the California Department of Justice. I am here today on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud sponsor of AB 3129 and thanks Dr. Wood for his continued work to address consolidation in California's healthcare market.

AB 3129 authorizes the Attorney General to review healthcare transactions involving private equity and hedge fund groups and reinforces the existing bar on the corporate practice of medicine as it applies to the interference of private equity groups or hedge funds in the medical care of patients.

As Dr. Wood mentioned, we plan to exempt for-profit hospitals from the bill. So this bill focuses on private equity because a private equity business model which is designed to buy an asset, maximize profits and sell that asset, has concerning effects when applied to our healthcare system. And these transactions have doubled in the past decade.

So in the healthcare context, we are seeing cuts to staff and services being made to increase profits. And then when that entity is sold, they could be susceptible to bankruptcy and further consolidation, jeopardizing the community's access to care.

AB 3129 would set up oversight over these transactions where the Attorney General would be authorized to approve, deny or approve with conditions these transactions, based on whether they are in the public interest. The conditions that the AG would place on a transaction are designed to keep these services open and affordable.

So, for example, a condition that the AG uses in his current role, reviewing nonprofit hospital transactions and that would be used in this context of private equity acquisitions, would be that services need to be maintained. So yes, this transaction can happen, but this provider group or long-term care facility would need to continue serving Medi-Cal patients.

A condition can also come in the form of price increase caps, so that prices for services don't have skyrocket and become unaffordable. This review process is not an automatic denial of these transactions. The oversight is to help ensure that Californians have access to affordable health care and that services remain available to those who need it.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, Ms. Brokaw. Others in support?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Senators. I'm Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California, the statewide healthcare consumer advocacy coalition, and we're here in support of AB 3129 by Assemblymember Wood.

For more than 30 years, Attorneys General of both parties have had the authority to approve, deny or approve with conditions mergers related to nonprofit health facilities. And in these last 30 years, between 80 and 90% of those proposed mergers have been approved, mostly with conditions to protect consumers.

And these conditions have been to keep services open and more recently, to prevent price hikes as a result of mergers, exactly the sort of conditions needed to protect access to affordable healthcare in the affected communities. This process is not new. What is new is that private equity is taking over hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and doctors offices.

And research is showing that this can lead to price increases, dangerous impacts on quality and risks for access to care and loss of services. One study found that private equity acquisitions of physician practices leads to price increases ranging from 16% in oncology to 4% in primary care and dermatology.

And in communities where private equity dominate physician specialties compared to other US markets, price increases were up to three times higher. In a nursing homes, private equity ownership was found to increase death rates of patients with Medicare coverage by 10%.

AB 3129 was subject specific private equity transactions in healthcare to the same sort of scrutiny and oversight that nonprofit health facilities have been subject to for decades. And while the Office of Health Care Affordability, or OHCA, will be reviewing these acquisitions, they do not have the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions these acquisitions to protect consumers.

We need the AG to have the authority to act before an acquisition happens to prevent the potential harm to communities and protect affordable care. When there is a merger or acquisition in healthcare, we hear about the wonderful things that will happen: innovation, efficiency and more. And we want those things for our communities, too.

We want the Attorney General to have the authority to act now, to hold private equity accountable to those promises and prevent the negative impacts that we're worried about.

And with the proposed amendments, we think that this-- while we're supportive of the bill prior, we still think this bill, with the acquisitions that are included, are very important to protect consumers from these private equity acquisitions and give the authority now for the AG to protect consumers. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All those who are in support, please approach the microphone. Your name, your affiliation, your position?

Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, reviewing the amendments, but in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Good morning. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Morning. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, support.

Samantha Seng, NextGen California, in support.

All right, thank you. Others in support, please approach microphone. Seeing no one, all right, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed, please come up. If you wouldn't mind, I think we're going to ask the opposition if you'd like to testify from the table. All right.

All right, Mister Praia, the microphone is yours.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Good morning. Assembly Member Wood, Marc Aprea, testifying in opposition to AB 3129 on behalf of our clients, American Investment Council and Children's Choice. A fundamental question we pose to the Committee is when does less capital in the marketplace lower prices?

And this measure, we believe, would thwart capital from being invested in California. Healthcare. AB 3129 picks winners and losers notwithstanding the Department of Managed Healthcare's regulation of Optum's licensed health plan transactions, DMHC does not regulate its acquisition of physician practices.

Optum, which employs over 70,000 physicians nationwide, finalized its acquisition of Beaver Medical Group in 2022, one of the largest multi-specialty medical groups in the Inland Empire with more than 1300 employees, including 900 Clinicians.

Why should Children's Choice, a 33 location pediatric dental practice providing dental care in underserved communities for children, have to comply with 3129, but Optum does not. We submit that the Legislature is looking to pick winners and losers.

OHA is the Office of Health Care Affordability, an organization formed in 2022 by the enactment of SB 184, provides a clear statement of the Legislature's intent that OHA.

It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a single entity within state government charged with referring transactions that may reduce market competition or increase cost to the Attorney General for further review. Further, the definitions of this Bill are imprecise and inconsistent. This is not a Bill that just covers private equity and hedge.

If all the Members on this dais wished to pool their funds, they would be covered by this Bill. However, one wealthy individual would be exempt from the process. Finally, the AG's authority to review and consent remains overly broad and we thank you, Mister Pratt. Alright, well, we would ask for a no vote.

All right, other witnesses in opposition.

Katherine Austen Scott with the California Hospital Association. We understand the amendments would remove for profit hospitals. Looking to understand how this would affect the remaining county hospitals, but we'll continue to look at the amendments and work with the Chair, the author and the sponsors on this issue. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Others in opposition.

Mister Chair and Members Meghan Loper, on behalf of the United Hospital Association. Similarly, we look forward to reviewing the amendments and understanding the effect. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks. On behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, we have an opposed, unless amended position. Our attorneys have been having positive conversations with the Attorney General's Office about exempting county hospitals, thank you.

Mister Chair, Members, I'm Fred Noteworth, representing the Association of Mental Support Organizations. In opposition thank you. Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in opposition.

Thank you. Others.

Kim Stone of stone advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, removing opposition as of the last round of amendments. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members.

Moved the Bill.

Senator Roth has moved the Bill. All right. Questions or comments? Yes, Senator Laird. Senator Derosso, did you wish to. Yes. All right, Senator Laird,

First let me ask a question which, and I apologize because I got here after I think you said you'd say, the amendment. Take the amendment or amendments. What's the impact of removing the for profit hospitals from this Bill?

I kind of feel like the impact is instead of a full loaf of bread, I got three quarters of a loaf of bread. In other words, it is a hit to the Bill. I do firmly believe that hospitals should be considered. The for profit hospitals should be considered.

But I do understand that Members of this Committee in particular have been well hammered by hospitals saying how awful and evil this is. And I recognize that I'd rather make progress on this than lose this. This area was a huge topic of concern during the development of OHCA.

It was the one piece we couldn't get across the line because of the same kinds of opposition from the same players that we are dealing with now, and we are still fighting about that going forward.

So my hope is that the other entities that will still be included, nursing homes, other practices, clinical labs, whatever, that the Attorney General can demonstrate that this is not the onerous process that is being claimed by the opposition and that the oversight is warranted and that a good outcome can happen, and that at some point somebody down the line can pick up the mantle and move this across the line for hospitals.

And I talked to, I think, sometime around yesterday afternoon, I could no longer respond to people that were inquiring about this Bill, but I had conversations, and one of the conversations among the opponents said that they thought OHCA really had a purpose that didn't necessary necessarily necessitate this Bill, because you could follow OHCA.

Could you speak to that?

That is really not true. OHCA is after the fact. OHCA will review transactions and look at impacts to the market, but they have no jurisdiction to actually affect whether the transaction can happen. What we simply wanted was the opportunity for the AG to look at this.

What's happening in other states is that, and with other entities in California. So, I mean, for example, with hospitals. This has happened in back east. There was one hospital chain that has now gone bankrupt, about 20 hospitals, all acquired by private equity.

My hope was that if that were to begin to happen here in California, we would be able to look at that proactively and determine, you know, will these transactions lead to potential problems going forward? OHCA doesn't cover that. It simply doesn't.

And it's been a red herring from the beginning, and it's disingenuous to say that, to say otherwise, quite frankly.

Then let me get to the comment I was going to make, and you teed it up, because I have two hospitals in my district that are sort of textbook cases about this law, and they are on different sides of that profit nonprofit equation.

That's why I'm trying to figure it out with Watsonville, which I think some of my colleagues are probably tired of hearing me talk about. That is where two years ago, a private equity firm had acquired it and ran it completely into the ground.

They announced they were going to just close it, 625 people, the only hospital for a disadvantaged community for miles either way. And fortunately, it got kicked into bankruptcy court so that I could do a Bill in a matter of days creating a public hospital district.

The bankruptcy court, within mantle of days of it becoming a district, could accept the bid. And then we raised $65 million over six months. They've passed a bond. They're just barely making it, but they're there and they're making it.

And if there had been the chance to examine a private equity firm that had never run a hospital before, we could see coming out that that was the case now in Hollister with Hazel Hawkins, it is a public district. They are pursuing a private partner. I think, fortunately for everyone, it has to go to the voters.

And I think in November, I will be really surprised if it passes. And it is the other way. They could, in my view, manage the hospital, take some tough steps, but manage the hospital and figure out how to get there.

And if this leaves nonprofits in, then there's a chance to review that in a way that you could assess that somebody that's out of state, with limited financial capability and doesn't know the state might not be the best person or entity to take over the hospital.

So that's why I think this Bill is necessary, is because we have nothing to address those issues. And we sit there and watch a hospital in a disadvantaged community just go completely under, and we have a second one we're watching that could go completely under.

And while I understand that this is a very complex Bill and that there are things in it that always might need some tinkering. I think the concept is really appropriate for the times, and I will be voting for the Bill when we get to that. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Senator Durazo, also, then Senator Roth, then me. All right, Senator Durazo, I want to.

Thank you, thank the author for bringing and introducing this Bill and for caring so much about our healthcare system, having that kind of vision. I just wanted to, if there is anything besides OCHA that the opposition has raised that you think it's important to remind us about.

Actually, you know, OCHA, like I said, has been the flashpoint. We worked for two and a half years, worked closely with the Administration to get OCHA across the line, and we heard many of the same debates around this particular issue in OCHA. Ultimately, we weren't successful there, and that's kind of why we're leaning on this area.

But this, unlike other efforts in the consolidation area, this is very narrowly focused because there is no oversight at all on private equity in the healthcare space, period. And it is not an emerging issue. It is here and it is creating challenges for the delivery of healthcare.

I think the other opposition is that this will somehow stifle investment. It's like, no, this will not stifle investment, but it will look at if that investment leads to control of the entity. And that's the key thing.

If someone wants to come in and invite private equity to invest in them, as long as they don't take control, they can do that. And I think that's also been disingenuous opposition there too, because we're not trying to stifle that investment. What we're trying to get is oversight.

If that investment leads to control of the entity and all the potential challenges that that entity will face going forward. And that's so I think, you know, I've been fighting what I feel in times has been really disingenuous opposition, and, you know, it's been challenging to get across because it is a complicated topic.

But I appreciate your questions and your comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, to respond to the question on the for profit Hofstra, you know, these tend to be large. They don't tend to be very many transactions. They tend to be rather huge transactions when there is a sale. They're also, it's the for profit marketplace.

Thank you, Senator Roth.

So there's probably a little bit more of an even playing field when the private equity comes to head to head with a for profit hospital and the team that the for profit has. So I'm not too concerned about the elimination, least at this point, of the for profit hospitals from the Bill.

Although I know the author is extremely disappointed. I've spent a fair amount of time on this Bill and this issue. In another context, I will say this. I don't think all private equity is equal.

And I think there are instances where private equity probably brings something to the table, particularly where we're trying to fund seismic retrofit and a variety of other things in the healthcare arena, where we're trying to continue to provide healthcare services in our medically underserved areas like the Central Valley.

But unfortunately, you know, and the opposition knows because I've said this to them, I have asked for clarifying language for this Bill to try to separate out private equity from the good and the bad, what the bad techniques are, what the good techniques are, what techniques cause problems for others, including the Attorney General.

And I have yet to see any language.

So I guess what will happen here is, should this Bill pass out, and I hope it does, that we will see the impact of the Bill, the actions of the Attorney General, and we will be able to sort out as legislators, those who are still here, what needs to be done to tweak this Bill to allow private equity investment where it benefits the healthcare delivery system and continue to rein it in where it does not.

So thank you, Mister chair, for allowing me to make my comments.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I agree with the comments of Senator Roth that there is good equity and bad equity, and I have seen equity firms come in and do horrible things, particularly in housing space in my district. But they're also. You need capital to survive.

We've been asking kind of, I don't want to say they're one sided questions, but kind of teeing it up for the author, which is fine, but Mister Aprae, do you want to comment at all on what's been discussed?

I again appreciate the author's engagement with us, as well as the Committee and the staff. I want to differ with Assembly Member Wood on 1.0 as to whether OHCA is after the fact. So when a transaction that's covered by OHCA is submitted to OHCA, it has to be done 90 days prior to the transaction.

Furthermore, OHCA has the ability to require that the applicant provide them answers to questions that they may have and may extend that 90 days by a significant term.

And so the idea that this, that OHCA only looks at things in the rearview mirror, I believe is not correct that it is prospective and that during that time that OHCA then would have the opportunity, if they see that there's an over concentration in the marketplace or that there is a risk to exceeding the price caps that OHCA has, which for 2025 is 3.5% and lowers down to 3% in 2029, that they have the obligation and the ability to refer that matter to the Attorney General for their review.

Any other questions, comments? No other questions or comments. All right, thank you very much. Once again, Assembly Member Wood, Mister Aprea has raised some important points, and I know you personally and professionally that you will continue to work on this. The issue concerning definitions is an important one as it leaves the Legislature, as I expect it well.

And in terms of private equity, the point about additional capital being invested in California in the healthcare market is a critical question.

One that we struggled with, you and I struggled with, and I think the state struggles with the efficacy of any sort of approval is something that we'll continue to watch to make sure that we are not unnecessarily stifling progress here in California, not unnecessarily stifling capital from being invested here in the healthcare industry.

So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. First of all, thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to Senator Roth for your work on this Bill in Senate health. I really appreciate it. I think, you know, the opposition and I are going to agree to disagree on things.

It is, you know, OHCA can make a referral to the AG, but then the AG has no authority to approve or disapprove of the transaction, to the best of my knowledge. And that's really what we're trying to establish here. I don't have. I absolutely agree. There's good private equity and bad private equity.

I think it's incumbent on us to really be able to look at the situation and try to make a best determination as to what is good and what is bad. And there is, there are track records for organizations out there that give us that opportunity.

That initial transaction where he said that if Mister Aprea said that if a group wanted to get together and buy something that would be considered private equity, the first transaction would be exempt. It's the second and third transactions within seven years that would be looked at. And that is, I think that's an important, that's an important point.

And then with regards to Children's Choice, my understanding is that mostly how they operate is buying is not buying practices, it's building new practices. And I have no objection if private equity wants to come in and build something from the ground up.

It's when you begin to accumulate practices and then have that undue influence to create an uncompetitive marketplace for healthcare that the problems arise, and so I want to thank you again. Appreciate your attention and the Committee's attention, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there a motion?

Yes.

I'm sorry. Senator Roth moves the Bill. Senator Roth has moved the Bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Ready 4-2. We'll put that on call your next Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. File item number? No, I'm sorry. File item number three.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Once again, I'd first like to thank the Committee staff for their efforts on this measure. State law prohibits flavored tobacco products in California, but unfortunately, they remain readily available throughout the state. The high rate of flavored tobacco use among youth is especially concerning.

A 2023 study by the CDC indicates that among middle and high school students who use tobacco, nearly 90% use flavored products. AB 3218 creates a pathway to ensuring flavored tobacco products are no longer available on the shelves of retailers and in our communities.

By creating an affirmative listing of unflavored tobacco products legal in California. This approach will help retailers determine at a glance whether a product delivered to their stores is legal or not. Additionally, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to penalize distributors that sell illegal tobacco products and manufacturers that falsely certify their products are unflavored.

And finally, the bill authorizes law enforcement to seize illegal tobacco products. These comprehensive enforcement steps will help implement the flavored tobacco pan the way it was intended. Here with me to testify in support is Tiffany Brokaw with the Attorney General's Office, the sponsor of the bill.

Byron Miller with the Attorney General's Office, is also available to answer technical questions. I respectfully ask for your support.

Alrighty. Thank you, Miss Brokaw. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tiffany Brokaw.

You may need to just pull it a little closer. There we go.

Hello? Oh, perfect. Okay. Thanks for your patience.

Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general and legislative advocate for the California Department of Justice, here today on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the proud sponsor of AB 3218, along with our co-sponsors Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.

As Dr. Wood mentioned, this bill will ensure the successful implementation of the flavored tobacco ban. When the ban went into effect, our office received a number of inquiries asking for guidance and assistance in effectuating the rollout of the law.

Our office drafted AB 3218 in response to these inquiries and is the next step in accomplishing the band's policy goals of getting these flavored tobacco products out of the hands of our youth. AB 3218 will establish a publicly available list of all tobacco products that are permissibly unflavored and allowed to be sold in California.

The development of such a list has long been a recommendation of public health advocates who have looked at our office's tobacco directory list as a leading example of how a publicized, curated list can provide clarity to industry participants and law enforcement on what products can and cannot be sold.

This bill will also render illegal flavored products contraband so that such products can be quickly removed from commerce and never reach our kids. It will hold the distribution chain accountable at a higher level. It will clarify the definition of characterizing flavor to specifically prohibit products that impart menthol-like cooling sensations.

Our office saw that after the flavor ban went into effect, new tobacco products were introduced to the market that were aimed to work around the ban. So by clarifying the definition, this ban will encompass these edge and work around products that have been subject to debate and litigation.

And lastly, 3218 will also authorize the Attorney General to omit from the unflavored list any tobacco products lacking the required FDI authorization. AB 3218 would hold. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. You urge an aye vote? All right. Thank you. All right, others in support. Others in support, please approach the microphone.

Tim Gibbs, campaign for tobacco-free kids. Proud co-sponsor.

Jamie Morgan, proud co-sponsor on behalf of the American Heart Association.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, here in support.

Autumn Ogden-Smith, with the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network. Proud co-sponsor, in support.

Cathy Senderling-McDonald for the County of Alameda, in support.

Thank you.

Kesa Bruce, American Lung Association, in support.

Brandon Marchy, with the California Medical Association, in support.

Kelly MacMillan, on behalf of California Dental Association, in support.

All right, thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, opposition. Welcome, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. John Winger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. We represent the majority of gas stations and convenience stores in the state. First and foremost, CFCA supports creating a directory that gives our members clarity on what we can and cannot sell.

However, we continue to have an opposed, unless amended position on the bill. I think we continue to have concerns with the broad discretion for the AG to be able to pull legal products off the list.

And we continue to have concerns with the expansion of the definition of characterizing flavor that we think is overly broad and could result in more products being pulled off the shelves, which will just bolster the illicit market even further.

And so, unfortunately, while we support the directory, we do continue to have concerns with the bill and have an opposed unless amended position.

All right, thank you very much. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion?

Senator Wilk has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to comment to the opposition, there are very few legal products actually approved for sale. The FDA has several thousand products that they are under review. They have chosen not to enforce against those products, but they are not considered legal products.

I have no problem with legal products. But these other products are not. And until the FDA approves them, they're not considered legal for sale.

All right, well, thank you. So this is a challenging, another challenging situation. Not quite as challenging as the one before, as the bill before. I understand there's a million pending applications at the FDA for approval of products that were not originally required to get prior approval under existing law.

On balance, I think the state should give some deference to the FDA's exercise of prosecutorial discretion when the Attorney General uses his own discretion. However, I think it's unwise to statutorily enact the FDA's current prosecutorial stance into state statute as it's not static and could change in the future.

So I hope that the Attorney General will consider the FDA's policy in making its own judgment as to what should be approved. Not approved. And with that, there's a question or a motion? Question. Oh, Senator Wilk.

May I ask a question, Mister? So I'm just curious. So we have unflavored products. The FDA has not blessed them and let's say there's no question that they're unflavored. There's not even a.

Nothing in there, other than tobacco, are those capable of being, you know, you've heard from the cigar people, for example, and there are others, I'm sure. Can those products be sold?

You know, I would say that's up to discretion of the Attorney General. If a company has certified to the FDA that their products are unflavored, the Attorney General, like the FDA, could not enforce until there's actual proof that they are.

So I'm assuming I shouldn't assume anything but that when an entity certifies that their product is unflavored to the FDA, there's a penalty for them if that is not true, one of which would be the loss of the product to the market. And so I think the fear is that the Attorney General would over enforce in this.

And I don't have that fear, quite frankly. I'm more concerned that the truly flavored products that are out on the market are not available or are pulled off the market and not available.

And so really, the premise here is to create an affirmative list, which we are trying to do, and we can't compel the FDA to move faster on this. And I'm comfortable with the Attorney General using his discretion and following the lead of the FDA.

Well, I tend to agree with you. In the first place, there's still a ton of people who, I suspect, still smoke.

And if unflavored products are banned or there's an attempt to do so, I'm sure there'll be an uproar in the public, but more importantly, it'll cause a disruption to the commercial market, which we probably don't want either. So I suspect it all going to sort itself out.

Thank you for tolerating my question and for your patience, Mr. Chair.

Senator Roth. All right, there's been a motion by Senator Wilk. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This file, item number three, AB 3218, the motion is do pass the Senate appropriations. Umberg? Umberg, aye. WIlk? Wilk, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Niello? Niello, no. Roth? Roth, aye. Stern? Wahab? Five to one.

All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, a couple things. One, let's go ahead. If there's a motion on the consent calendar. Senator Durazo has moved the consent calendar, and we're going to switch things up a little bit. I'm going to call assemblymember Wicks.

If you would come up, and then we'll go with Assembly Member Wilson immediately afterwards, we're going to talk for just a second, okay? All right, so first we're going to do the consent count,

And then number one.

I'm sorry,

Did we do one? Did we take a vote on one?

Sure, sure. Okay, we'll do item number one, and then we'll go to the consent calendar. So one first? Yes.

Motion on file item number one.

Senator Laird has moved it.

Okay, file item number one, AB 2889, the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]

4-1. We'll put that on call. All right, next, the consent calendar. It's been moved by Senator Durazo.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll put that on call. All right, thank you. All right, I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Wilk, and Senator Wilk, if you would assume the chairmanship. And I'll be back in just a second.

Next is file item six, AB 1949, by Assembly Member Wicks with a recommendation of do pass to do pass as amended to appropriations. With that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to thank the chair for his personal engagement on this bill, and should he return, I will thank him personally when he gets back and also want to discuss with him some of the amendments.

But I'm taking the amendments today, including the knowledge standard under the premise of the conversation that the chair and I had around, you know, the Attorney General, and I will be continuing to work with him over the break as this bill should pass moves into appropriations to ensure that the.

The term cannot be interpreted and applied to afford blanket immunity to the platform. So I think there's still some work to do, and obviously we'll want to work with the committee as well as the chair on that, but I'm happy to have that conversation with him, too, if he returns in time.

Following the investigation of Attorney General Bonta in 2023, it was revealed that meta knows that its social media platforms are used by millions of children under the age of 13, including at 1.0 about 30% of all 10 to 12 year olds, and it unlawfully collects their personal information. As amended, AB 1949 will help to ensure.

Will help to keep children under 18 and their data safe from being collected and exploited without parental consent. The measure will prohibit businesses from collecting, using, or disclosing the personal information of Californians under 18 without affirmative authorization. For users under 13, affirmative approval must come from a parent.

Opposition will contend that this will unconstitutionally restrict teens and adults access to lawful speech. To be clear, AB 1949 does not regulate content, speech, or access to content or speech. The age requirement determines what privacy and data collection policies apply to the specific user.

The data at issue in this bill concerns a vulnerable population that should be given elevated protection. It is important to note that businesses can apply the requirements of 1849 to all consumers, not only to minors, thereby eliminating any requirement to employ age assurance tools, if not already.

Businesses should elevate their data collection practices and determine what is necessary to operate rather than what is suitable for profits. You know, I've done a number of bills in this space, you know, and I come to this as a mom.

I've got a four year old, almost four year old, her birthday's next month, and a seven year old. And as I see how they are engaging in the world, it's a whole different world than when we were kids. And I'm not a Luddite. My children have access to screen time, and we have regulations around that.

But I strongly believe our number one job as lawmakers is to keep our community safe, specifically our most vulnerable, which are our children. And so, again, I've done a lot of work in this space. To me, this is an important step in the right direction to guard their privacy and protect their privacy.

I've been working very collaboratively with our sponsors, the Attorney General's Office, who also has deep concern about this. They're going to be here to testify. I do want to recognize now that the chair is back, chair I'd mentioned earlier right before you had left, I'll be taking the committee amendments today.

But as you and I discussed, I wanted to keep working on the knowledge standard because I don't want it to be something that's blank immunity for the platforms. So I know you and I talked about that privately. I wanted to put that on the record here for committee, though.

We've done this dance before, and you're a good partner in all of this, so I look forward to those continued conversations, and sorry for blowing up your break, but I know we'll have more conversations on that.

Well, you won't be the only one, so. All right, thank you. Great.

And with that, I'll let my witnesses testify.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Amy Alley, a Deputy Attorney General and the Legislative Director at the Department of Justice here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is proud to sponsor AB 1949, the California Children's Data Privacy Act. Our esteemed author, Assemblymember Wicks, thank you for leading on this bill.

And it's a simple, graceful solution to strengthen data privacy protections for children and improve child safety online.

AB 1949 fills a gap in California law as part of a larger effort to create a safer online environment for California's kids, using all of our tools from the courthouse to the Capitol to stop a race among massive corporations to collect and use kids data for profit.

Last fall, Attorney General Bonta, along with state attorneys general from across the country, sued Meta for misleading users and putting children in harm's way.

Our lawsuit alleges that the company violated federal and state laws, disregarding serious dangers about the impact of social media use on kids mental health, building a business model focused on maximizing young users time on the platform, employing harmful and psychologically manipulative platform features, and lying about it.

This one company's conduct is deceptive, dangerous, and illegal, and it is just one piece of a really significant crisis facing our children. Our children spend more and more time online in front of screens for school play, self expression, connection and exploration.

That time spent online has a negative impact on their mental health, their ability to learn and to see, their feelings of exclusion and susceptibility to addiction.

The collection and exploitation of children's personal information is in large part what enables businesses to harness the algorithmic delivery of content designed to lead to social media addiction in children and drive up company profits in the process.

In addition to adverse consequences of the time spent online, the collection of children's data by these giant companies also puts our kids at grave risk, leaving them vulnerable to having their location and other personal data tracked.

Thank you very much, you urge an aye vote great.

Thank you. I will say no more.

All right, others in support. If you're in support, please approach the microphone.

Winning turn. Members Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute, in enthusiastic support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in support.

Thank you.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action. We have a support, if amended, position. We're reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Krystal Straight on behalf of Common Sense Media in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1949, please approach the microphone or the table, whichever you choose.

Thank you. Thank you, chair and members, and thank you to the author. Ronak Daylami with Cal Chamber respectfully in opposition to AB 1949, our member companies do take seriously the privacy rights, especially of children.

But we have had significant concerns with this bill in print, as it would have the opposite effect intended, as it makes it impossible for a business to ensure compliance unless it engages in age verification.

To that end, we do thank the committee and the author for the amendments and the analysis, pending review of the official language, of course, we believe that by virtue of reinstating the actual knowledge standard, the amendments vastly reduce many of our concerns.

Despite our opposition to the bill in print, we do see a path forward where an AB 1949 meaningfully strengthens children's privacy rights in a more balanced manner that can be more readily operationalized by businesses without posing unintended consequences to get there.

However, we do believe that the other provisions related to the collection, use and disclosure, section 1798.100 and .121, that those need to revert to existing law. That said, again, we look forward to working with the author and looking at the amendments, including some of the language around actual knowledge. But we do oppose. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Next primary witness in opposition.

Thank you, Mister chair and members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

All right, others in opposition.

Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We were opposed unless amended. We'll be taking a look at the amendments. We think it's very possible we'll be able to drop our opposition, but not quite sure yet.

All right, thank you.

Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Tech Net. Align our comments with the chamber. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark Sagna with the American Property Capital Insurance Association opposed the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. -- on behalf of the Car Frontier Foundation, in opposition until we remove the amendments.

Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no others approach the microphone, let's now bring it back to committee. Questions by Committee Members. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Wilk?

Yeah, I don't have a question. I just have a comment. This is a great bill. Plan to support it today. We've got to protect. We've got to protect these kids, and we don't do a very good job. I want to share something that happened to me earlier this year, which I found offensive.

So I had a health scare. Ends up, I'm okay. But I got my information back from my Doctor in the hospital through a private app, my chart. And then I open it. And then 10 minutes later, I start getting stuff on the disease I might have had. That is frightening to me.

I know they're doing it to everybody. So when, you know, when the chamber comes up says, oh, our companies care about privacy rights. No, they don't. They care about turning a profit. And we need to protect our kids. So I'll be supporting your bill today.

All right, that sounds like a motion. Senator Wilk has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Wicks. Thank you for working so diligently on this. This has been a challenging bill, and we'll continue to work on it over the summer.

So some of Wicks would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. I appreciate your partnership. I think we do have to figure out a broader strategy around some of the knowledge standard stuff, which I know you and I have discussed. So I look forward to working on that in the future with you as well. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. Assemblymember Wilk has moved the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

He called you an Assembly Member? He demoted me again.

I'm sorry. I did. I apologize. Yes. Governor Wilk has moved the Bill, so. Right. Okay. All right, here we go. Okay. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

This is filed item number six, AB 1949. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll put that on call. All right. Assemblymember Wilson, back to you. Item number four, AB 2319.

Thank you, chair. Recognizing your day is long, we will try to make this as quick as possible.

Although this is extremely important and we've given our witnesses, we've noted to our witnesses to be as brief as possible while getting their point across, I'm pleased to present AB 2319 a bill that aims to reduce the alarming and disproportionate maternal mortality rate of black women and other pregnant persons of color, by ensuring successful implementation of SB 464, the California Dignity and Pregnancy and Childware Act of 2019.

A recent study by the California Department of Public Health found that women of color, and particularly black women, die of pregnancy related complications at a much higher rate than white women in California, this disparity exists at all income levels.

To address this, the California State Legislature passed the act in 2019, which requires hospitals, alternative birth centers, and primary care clinics, which are the facilities covered under the act, to conduct evidence based implicit bias training for all health professionals who provide care during a patient's pregnancy, childbirth, and immediate postpartum period.

In August 2021, the Department of Justice launched an investigation to ascertain compliance with the act. While some facilities went above and beyond the requirements of act, there is still more work to be done for full compliance.

The DOJ investigation revealed that there is a need for enforcement mechanisms, public transparency of compliance data, firm compliance deadlines, and additionally specificity and clarity so that facilities are better equipped to know which providers need to be trained.

AB 2319 makes the necessary adjustments to ensure we are doing what we can to protect black birthing people in the State of California. With me today is Tiffany Brokaw from the Attorney General's Office and Monica Washington, a mother who has unfortunately experienced racial biases firsthand and would like to tell her story.

All right, first, Miss Brokaw, we haven't seen you in a while. Go ahead.

I'm glad there was a gap there from when you saw me last. So, anyway, good morning, Mister chair and members Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General and legislative advocate at the California Department of Justice, here today on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is one of the proud sponsors of AB 2319.

The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, and in California, people of color, particularly black women, continue to die at three to four times the rate of white women. So to address this, the legislature passed SB 464 in 2019.

And it's one thing for a lot to be passed, but it's another to make sure that it's implemented properly. So the DOJ launched an investigation to ascertain compliance with the act, and from that investigation, DOJ found ways to better equip health facilities to comply with the law.

And those recommendations are reflected in AB 2319 and they are to provide clarity on which facilities are mandated to administer the trainings which employees need to be trained establishing for deadlines for which trainings must be completed, confer enforcement powers to the DOJ and authorize the DOJ to post compliance data online so the public can see which facilities did or did not administer these trainings. And for these reasons, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please. Go ahead.

Yes, I'm Monica Washington. I live in South Sacramento. I'm a mother of three and a homeschool mom and wife. Black women have 40% more miscarriages than white women in the US, and most of them are due to treatable conditions.

This statistic became of utmost importance for me to know, because for the last four years, I've endured four unexplained miscarriages in a row with no end in sight of. My most recent one was in March. It wasn't until this fourth one that I finally get a diagnosis.

Chronic endometritis, a treatable bacterial infection of the endometrium known for at least the past 25 years to cause infertility and recurrent miscarriages.

But because I am a black woman and also of advanced maternal age, I was selectively denied the opportunity to at least to be offered the diagnostic testing to see if chronic endometritis was indeed the culprit for me of all of the sudden of me having sudden miscarriages.

Not only am I a black woman of advanced maternal age, but I am also a Medi-Cal recipient, which left me vulnerable to insurance bias and selective withholding of Care Healthcare Services, not because my insurance didn't cover it, but because the Doctor didn't think I was deserving of a certain kind of screening and care.

So repeatedly, year after year, doctors were giving me the bare minimum, bottom of the barrel ob-gyn care, and I knew it. So I literally hopped around from one ob-gyn clinic and hospital to another, hoping to find a Doctor who wouldn't write me off because of my skin color and my age.

In all of my experience with different facilities, I have learned that for a black woman on Medi-Cal seeking optimum standard of care, it didn't matter what facility I went to. Bias and discrimination from one or multiple people in any given facility always found me. I experienced it at Sacramento County Health center, capital ob-gyn.

Sutter, Wellspace Health.

Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to wrap it up, please.

Sure. I didn't almost die in my maternal care crisis because I am black. I almost died because of how a Doctor decided to treat me because I am black. I didn't have four miscarriages in a row because I am black. I had them because of withholding and neglect the standard of care.

I assume you're urging an aye vote, right?

Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. All right, those in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning, chair. My name is Onyemma Obiekea with Black Women for Wellness and Black Women for Wellness Action project proud co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Becca Cramer Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Nora Lynn with Children Now in support, thank you

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support, thank you.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support, thank you.

Hi, Carol Gonzalez on behalf of HOPE, Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support, thank you.

Lily McKay on behalf of First Five California and First Five LA in support, thank you.

Kelly Macmillan on behalf of Marcia Dimes and the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

Cathy Senderling-Mcdonald for the County of Alameda, in support.

Thank you.

Sandra Poole on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty proud co sponsor, in support, thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors as well as the California State Association of Psychiatrists, both in support, thank you.

Thank you, Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksamer on behalf of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Malinowski, the SEIU California in support.

Thank you, Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association support.

Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no one else approach the mic, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2319 please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee questions by committee members. Senator Roth has moved the bill. Senator Niello has a question. Senator Wilk has a question.

Thank you, Mister chair. This is a significant issue, a significant problem. I agree. And something this significant is rarely due to just one factor. And as your witness pointed out, a significant factor in the issue is Medi Cal.

Racism can have a factor, but perhaps we're missing the role of poverty that forces people to Medi-care, that restricts access significantly. Seems to me that ought to be part of the issue.

Also, if this bill passes and if the Attorney General has enforcement responsibilities, I hope he will view his responsibility to enforce as being larger than just one particular target and perhaps go after the dysfunction of our Medicare system because we, we under pay and therefore many physicians don't accept Medi Cal patients and there's a serious lack of access.

That is a significant issue in this particular problem. And again, if the bill passes, I hope that the Attorney General will recognize that and perhaps try to do something about it.

Thank you, Senator, to the chair. Thank you, Senator, for your comments and wholly agree with them. And what we found from the DOJ's audit is there were several issues that led to the disarm, the alarming rates related to black maternal health, and a less successful outcome. And it is across all income levels.

And so we, as the black caucus, when hearing upon that, have set out to address the issue with multiple bills. This is the first of many that you will see related to this particular issue based on that audit.

And so we will address all of the issues that came forth, but this was one of them that having got it halfway through the session, we felt like as a great start because we felt like it was low hanging fruit for the implicit bias, recognizing that hospitals wanted to do it, were doing it, but there wasn't clarity around it.

And so we thought that was easier to start with. And then the rest are a bit more complex, and they will be before you in the new session.

I don't think there's anything complex at all about the problems with Medicare under reimbursement and lack of access. And I really wish that you would have included that aspect in your bill.

And when I mean complex, I mean writing the law can get a little hairy sometimes.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mister chair. I'm supporting the bill today. I concur with my colleague that it's a. It's more comprehensive, but in LA County they do a healthcare assessment every three years. And it's broken down by service provider, area spas. And the Antelope Valley, which is in my district, is spa number one.

And if you look at those health outcomes, they are horrible. But when it relates to black women and black infant mortality, it's on par with the third world country. So there's things going on. So I think we again, a holistic approach, but happy to support your proposal today.

Thank you so much.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I want to thank the author very much and our witness for being here and everyone who's working on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Not only on behalf of black women, but how that impact also on other women of color, immigrants, immigrant women.

So what you're doing is helping all women who face that, face that bias, who face that racism, face that discrimination. And we've gone through this in past decades, but it never seems to stop. And I'm proud that you're offering partial solution to that.

But we can go back just a few decades, to when we were forcibly sterilized, when, you know, just outrageous things like that happening, stemming from the racism towards especially women of color and black women. So thank you for doing this.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Saying no other questions or comments, I think Senator Roth has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. I just would like to say thank you to my witnesses for being here. Especially to the mother who shared her lived experience. Thank you for the discussion. This is not the last time you'll see me talking about this issue.

It is big and needs to be addressed to ensure that all women, all birthing people, when they have a pregnancy, that there is a successful outcome for them and their baby. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. It's been moved by Senator Roth. Madam Secretary, please call a roll.

Is this file item number four AB 20319? The motion is to pass descendant appropriations. [Roll Call] Five to one.

5-1. We'll put that on call. All right. File number five, AB 3138.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Senators, I want to start by thanking the chair and the Committee staff for working diligently with my office on amends. Although we are continuing those negotiations, we will take the Committee amends, which includes a two year delay in implementation.

Understanding that the chair is open to continue our discussion on the appropriate amends as as well as recognizing there is not a desire to restrict current protections under law for fleet operators, commercial cars or cars with occupational licenses.

I'm pleased to present AB 3138, which will allow modification of the existing alternative digital license plate program to allow drivers the option to include vehicle location technology, more commonly known as GPS.

With the amendments, this Bill will also subject the digital plates to approval by both the DMV and CHP, and will require DMV to conduct analysis of banner messages displayed on license plate. This builds upon a successful pilot program launched over a decade ago.

In 2013, a 2019 report by DMV assessing the Alternative Device pilot program, which notably allowed for GPS and banner messages, it found that no significant law enforcement, DMV or customer concerns. If this Bill becomes law, all drivers will still be able to receive the metal license plates that they are accustomed to seeing.

This Bill does not change that, but it gives drivers a choice whether they would like alternative device that has been approved by the DMV and CHP, an option that has existed for years under the pilot program.

This Bill also puts in place privacy standards for GPS plates that far exceed protections and current law for other comparable GPS equipped devices such as the cars themselves, apps used inside the cars, our cell phones and countless other legal products available to consumers at much cheaper prices.

AB 3138 requires the following protections for GPS enabled plates sold in California. The GPS must be capable of being permanently disabled by means of a non reversible method that ceases all functionality and tracking information capabilities.

The GPS shall be capable of being manually disabled and enabled by a driver of the vehicle while that vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle. The method of manually disabling and enabling this GPS shall be permanently located and easy to disable and enable without requiring access to a remote online application.

The method of manually disabling and enabling the GPS shall not require a password or any login information. And finally, once the vehicle location technology is manually disabled from inside the cardinal, the only method of re-enabling the technology shall be manual from inside the car.

The registered owner of the license plate, the manufacturer, the DMV or any other entity shall not have the capability to reengage the GPS through any remote means. With me today is to present and support I have Esteban Nunez on behalf of Reviver

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Esteban Nunez. I'm here on behalf of Reviver. As the author stated, we will be accepting the Committee's amendments and Reviver remains committed to working with staff and Members to get this Bill in a comfortable place for everybody.

AB 3138 really builds off the work that the Legislature has previously voted on, even starting with SB 806 in 2013. This Bill clarifies that digital license plates must comply with provisions to ensure the privacy of the consumer is not compromised while continuing to strengthen the benefits provided to businesses.

To be clear, there are two different types of plates offered by reviver. There is a battery operated plate which does not contain GPS, and there is a wired plate that does have GPS. So customers have to actively opt into having the GPS and the GPS is also an extra cost and a service that's provided by the company.

So two different opt in opportunities for the customer. All Reviver services are opt in. This Bill does not change that. This Bill will help to maintain customer safety and privacy rights by strengthening the parameters around geolocation technology, which we hope can be applied more broadly later on.

The language of this Bill clearly states that if the alternative devices fail to meet these requirements, vehicle location technology shall not be permitted in the devices as AB 984, the previous legislation that formalized the pilot program, moved through the legislative process in 2022.

Amendments were taken as a result of these conversations with opposition to include a kill switch mechanism, the non-reversible mechanism that the author just stated. Digital license plates and geolocation technology has had many benefits to fleet vehicles and small businesses.

We have had many support letters and testimonials from our users and customers that prove Reviver's modernization and batch registration renewal process promotes accountability and efficiency for their customers and their staff. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mister Nunez. All right, anyone else who is in support of AB 3138, please approach the microphone.

Morning. Anthony Samson on behalf of the California New Car Dealers in support, thank you.

Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 3138, please approach either the table or the microphone. Your choice.

And just to be clear with Assembly Member Wilson, I see Members are looking through their analysis. The amendment that you discussed is not in the analysis. That's a two year delay in implementation, so you need not look through the analysis. You've accepted that amendment, and I understand because I was part of that conversation.

You proposed other amendments late last night that we haven't had a chance to see or analyze. I haven't rejected them, nor has the Committee rejected them. And you're free to continue to have that conversation and appropriations, but just I wanted to make sure that the record was clear on that score. Thank you. Thank you.

Is that your understanding also?

That is my understanding. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Let's now turn to the opposition.

Becca Kramer Madder, on behalf of ACLU, California Action in respectful opposition, AB 3138 puts domestic violence survivors and LGBTQ teens at risk.

It allows GPS surveillance trackers and license plates, which can be used by unsupportive parents to see, for example, if their teen has gone to the local LGBTQ center or by abusers to track domestic violence survivors who may still live with them. AB 3138 undermines Californias status as a refuge for people seeking abortions.

A passenger in a Lyft car or a friends vehicle who gets picked up at the airport and taken directly to Planned Parenthood may not know that the car they're in has a tracker that could provide evidence against them.

In a case about traveling here for an abortion against their state's anti-reproductive justice laws, AB 3138 provides ICE the ability to locate undocumented Californians through GPS surveillance technology. This is why many LGBTQI reproductive justice and domestic violence organizations opposed the 2022 Bill that made permanent the digital license plate program.

Until that Bill was amended to prohibit GPS trackers and digital license plates on passenger vehicles, AB 3138 would remove that safety protection, instead inserting back in language like that which these organizations have, if.

You'd can wrap it up. I assume you're urging a no vote.

I'm urging a no vote because this language does not take into account power dynamics, which is why the opposition rejected it originally.

Thank you.

Okay.

Tracy Rosenberg with Elk and Privacy. Good morning. In April of 2023, only 90 days after AB 984, the original enabling legislation went into effect. Reviver, the only approved vendor for these projects, suffered a catastrophic security crisis where hackers were able to gain master access to the central database. They could report cars as stolen when they weren't.

Delete license plates, your license plate, for example, and see all the GPS data for the 30,000 pilot vehicles with GPS that were on the road to add a massive collection of highly sensitive geolocation data to a company that has already experienced a severe breach of security is ill advised and not responsible.

This should not be a buyer beware situation. People are going to DMV and being told this is a safe and secure product when the evidence is that it is not, and that was less than a year ago. Polls show that people are concerned about where the data taken by their cards ends up.

And the next time a river of Californias geolocation data ends up for sale to the highest bidder, people will not be happy. The 2022 agreement in AB 984 that was crafted in the Senate was balanced. It opened up a new product while avoiding foreseeable harms to Californians in Senate transportation.

The company itself, the spokesperson said there was no heavy demand for the product for residential vehicles. Therefore, and we just heard about the amendment right now we think the AB 984 agreement in 2022 was the right thing and it should stay in place. Thanks, Marty.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition to AB 3138, please approach.

Hello. Dani Kando-Kaiser. On behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Privacy Rights Clearing House in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions by Committee Members other than Senator Durrazo. Senator Durazo.

Sorry on such a busy day, but a lot of questions. I'm very mixed about this. The issues of privacy are very serious. We know in our life experiences how important the issues have been brought up about privacy.

And I'm a little, this is the inclusion now of a private, private sector company and connected with the DMV, a government company. And I'm a little confused as to the access and the connection that the three have with each other. It's not.

I understand that the examples have been given by the opposition of domestic violence or being undocumented. But putting those aside, it just seems like we've opened up the possibility for anybody who's, even if they're aware that they have the GPS, it just opens up the possibility. Where does that information go? Where is the tracking done? By whom?

And is it just in the control of the owner of the vehicle? Or is it again, now that we have private sector involvement? It's getting all confused here.

Thank you. Thank you for your question and your concern. And privacy is of utmost importance to me. And it's something that I express regularly, as I said on the Privacy Committee on the Assembly side. And so this Bill builds upon what is already existing law, where we do have a private sector involvement in our DMV registration process.

And the plates itself are dumb plates, meaning that there is no information contained in the plates, just the number, the license plate number and the vehicle identification number. And so that is all someone can access from the plates. The question is, is the GPS enabled technology, where does that live?

That lives within the app and completely owned by the user? It's not owned by the company in any way, shape or form. The hack that was talked about was the white hat. Researchers in 2022 hacked not only Reviver, but a number of car manufacturers as well, to show the vulnerabilities.

And of course, when those vulnerabilities were shown, then those issues were resolved not only with Reviver, but with the car manufacturers as well. And so that was an intentional done by researchers, not hackers, on the dark web. That information that was hacked does not live anywhere on the dark web because it was done intentionally by researchers.

And so I would say that the information is private. There has been bolstering of technology, and as we know, as technology grows and advances, there are all vulnerabilities that exist, and that's why you continually have improvement on them to be able to shore those up. But once again, the plates themselves are dumb.

If somebody was to access the plate, they would get someone's license number and they would get someone's vehicle identification number. Things that you can get from a metal plate now and walking up to someone's window and seeing on their window.

Okay, just one more question. Is information on the that's gathered or tracked by the GPS, is that stored by the company? Yes. But does a company have access to store the information that the GPS has recorded or.

We know our vehicle identification number is listed in several places of car and is actually visible, you know, from, if you walk up to a front window. So those are the two things that someone can access from a plate. And so I just would like to say that those protections exist.

Yes, it's stored, as I understand it, it's stored in the cloud. Right. And so it is, but it is for the use of the individual, not the company.

But the company is in control of that information.

The company is in charge of storing that information on behalf of their consumer. They are not in control, meaning they don't get to use it for any other purpose? For any purpose. They only are, and this is through DMV regs. It is owned by the user, and so it is stored on the company's server slash cloud.

But it is not for use by the company in any way, shape, or form. Okay.

Thank you, Senator Stern, move the Bill. All right, Senator Laird,

Just quickly, I think there's still concerns, and I was thinking that the amendment might be to start to address what some of those concerns are, or guardrails about privacy to the extent they don't already exist. And it looks like the amendment is to delay the implementation for two years.

So does that mean that if there are still concerns, you intend to work on them in that period?

So there are amendments taken in the Assembly house dealing with the guardrails of privacy, and so we added additional amends related to that. There are amends that the company has proposed. They don't have to do those legislatively.

They can do those with DMV through the approval process, but they can be done legislatively if that's the will of the body.

The amend that the Chair offered was a two year delay to give an opportunity for outside of the legislative process, given the fact that it was two years fresh or two years fresh from the white hat researchers hack of all vehicles, to be able to then continue strengthen the guardrails around technology outside of the legislative process.

Just the natural occurrence of what businesses do. And that's how I understand the two year implementation, the delay of the two year implementation of work. It was at the Chairs.

Yes, you're correct.

Okay.

Yes. So that's how that worked. It was nodding for initially, for those of you at home. Okay.

Okay. I mean, because I was queasy about this and share some of the concerns and don't know, and I'm a layperson, but when it's like, oh, the company is just responsible for storing it, they still have access to it.

They do have access to it, but they are not. That is wholly owned by the user, and so it.

Well, we've seen various hacks of information wholly owned by the user.

Right, and they were in 2022. The white hat searchers saw that there was vulnerability in information that is stored, which is. Which led to the update of not only these policies, but related to the vehicle manufacturers. Right. As it relates to their GPS technology.

But I think that, you know, and I understand the concern because this came up last session when I was working on this Bill of our DV community and LGBTQ community. I'm sensitive to both those communities for various reasons, would not want someone to feel tracked.

I have fought to make California a refuge to continue to build on what others have done before me. And so there is no way, shape, or form that I would not want California to be a refuge, but to say that GPS Technology doesn't exist in a tile, in an Apple pod or not Apple pod. Apple airtag. Right.

We track our suitcases now, right? Because we have that technology. There are cheaper ways to track a vehicle, and we've done everything more than what is for other GPS enabled vehicles related to this.

Meaning when you get into a car that has an alternative device, not just Reviver, but anywhere else, and there are other applicants are going through this process now to get their device approved, it tells you that you have. That this vehicle is being tracked through this Reviver plate.

Doesn't tell you whether there's a tag in the car or, you know, or other types of GPS enabled. You can disable it as a driver outside of the app, and you can. And it can't be re enabled unless it's manually re-enabled. So there are lots of protections to ensure that vehicles are not tracked.

Well, I think the worst thing in politics is semi revisionist history of something going wrong later and everybody saying, I knew it, I knew it, and yet there's just uneasiness about this.

I will vote to move it, but it just seems that there needs to be vigilance during that period of time to see if there's things that we have not contemplated about this that need to be addressed.

Absolutely. And that can happen at the Department level.

Thank you, Senator Laird, Senator Durazo.

Just a quick. I'm very still unconvinced of all the issues I will support just today, but I need to spend more time with you because I'm very uncomfortable.

Okay. Thank you. All right, Senator Stern has moved the Bill. Would you like to close?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the robust discussion on this. And I understand, you know, that it always can be queasy when we're considering technology because it moves much faster than the law can keep up. Just noting that the Bill does include that the language, that the data cannot be shared, and that is a protection within the law.

Also noting that I appreciate the chair willingness, as well as Committee staff who've worked diligently on this, to come up with the amends that we were able to get already in print, plus the additional and the continued discussion with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. Moved by Senator Stern. Madam Chief Counsel, please call the roll.

7-0

Roll Call

Put that on call. All right. Assemblymember Ta, file item number 11 AB 2460.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. AB 2460 is a cleanup Bill to my AB 1450 A passed by this Committee last year and signed by the Governor. This Bill adds minor identification language requests by the Department of Real Estate, and we agree with the Governor's office to clean up this year.

This Bill also clarifies that the Association membership may reconvene an election meeting using the reduced quorum. It is not up to the board. This is ridiculous as I have learned that several SOA board have refused to recognize the new lower quorum threshold for fear of being unseated when the votes are tallied.

We need to ensure that in integrity of the voting process is in the hands of the Association membership to guarantee the cast votes are counted. Today I have Lulu Brown with Community Association Institute to testify in support.

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

Char and Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the community Association's Institute, California Legislative Action Committee. We brought this Bill forward at the request of the Governor's office from AB 1458 last year to provide a clarification on a reconvened meeting rather than a subsequent meeting.

In doing so, we also then noticed that the definitions of reduced quorum were different in the Bill. So we've cleaned that up. You will hear from the opposition requesting that we actually address the issue of individual notice on this Bill.

That was an issue that we debated last year in this Committee on AB 1458, and this Committee voted unanimously to keep the Bill at general notice. And so we've not addressed that issue, primarily because the main reason we're back here today is because the request of the Governor. We ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much Mister Brown.

Others in support of AB 2460 please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn the opposition if you're opposed AB 2460 please come forward. Here we go. Okay, sir.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Tom Sur, I'm on the Legislative Committee of the Center for California Homeowner Association Law, and we continue to advocate for the amendments that we have been offering throughout this process.

Because what's happening with this Bill is it's clarifying some wording in the underlying Bill that we oppose it passed. We accept the current law and appear today to oppose unless amended. Because the posture, in this posture. Because this new procedure for lowering a quorum needs further improvements to protect the rights and interests of individual homeowners, which is our constituency.

We've offered amendments that first of all provide expanded notices, Mr. Brown has indicated, of the reconvened meeting as a matter of due process, that is, notice. And because such expanded notice will actually improve voter participation.

Voters can't vote if they don't know an election's being extended. Secondly, the current law and this Bill leave unanswered a critical question of what happens to ballots if a quorum is not met. These ballots should remain unopened and uncounted, and should be safeguarded by the inspector of elections until a quorum has been met.

This avoids the possibility of a partial count and leaked results and so forth, which would subject an election to a chaotic situation. And finally, the current law does not indicate how many times the meaning to count ballots may be reconvened. So the new language in the Bill that the authors presented doesn't call a second or third meeting.

It continues, in theory, the same meaning by reconvening. But what the Bill does not say is how many times this reconvening can occur. We recommend that it be limited and with those offered amendments that we still continue to hope will be accepted. We do ask for your no vote unless there is acceptance of the amendment. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition to AB 2460, seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members, seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Stern has moved the Bill. All right. Senator Ta would you like to close?

I really want to thank the Committee staff for working with our office. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, it's been moved by Senator Stern. Please call the roll.

This is file item number 11, AB 2460. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, next person present in order is Assemblymember Jackson. We're gonna jump way, way, way ahead to file number 40. Okay.

It worked. Sometimes. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Committee Members.

AB 1818 would establish a two-year pilot program developed and administered by the California Community College Chancellor's office and the California State University Chancellor's office to allow overnight parking on college campuses in order to create and develop best practices on how to do it safely and reasonably if there are students who find themselves to be homeless and have nowhere else to go

Consistency and stability is the way to ensure that people are able to be stabilized and then connected to services so they then can make sure that we. All they have to do is concentrate on their studies.

And so, once again, what's important about this also is that we are careful to provide liability protections to the CSU and community college and defer to the chancellor's offices of each institution to be collaborative in their creation of the pilot program. Again, this is the last resort. This is not to supplement actually more, more successful strategies.

But again, we have to make sure that these students are safe, and they do not have to take additional risks in their higher education pursuits. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Assembly Member Jackson, let me ask, are you going to accept the amendments as proposed in the analysis?

I am accepting the amendments, yes.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support of AB 1818, please come forward.

Kim Lewis, with that California Coalition for Youth, I respectfully ask for support vote for our students experiencing homelessness.

All right, thank you. Anyone else in support? Let's turn to the opposition now. AB number 40. File item number 40, AB 1818. If you're opposed, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Laird.

I move the bill.

Senator Laird has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. All right. Assembly Member Jackson, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. We. We went too fast. Are you here to testify on AB 1818? Okay, you gotta approach the microphone and tell us that.

David Ramirez with the University of California Student Association in support.

All right, thank you.

Celene Aridin, President of the University of California Student Association. Represents 230,000 plus undergrad students in support.

Thank you.

Valeria Cantor-Menez, Vice Chair of the UC Student Association and recent graduate of UC Davis.

Thank you. in support. Yes, thank you.

Caroline Nguyen, policy Director of the UC Student Association. And we are in support.

All right. Thank you. Now let me turn again to the opposition. If the opposition didn't have a chance to come in. Going once. Going twice. All right. Seeing no opposition, Senator Stern, I believe has moved the bill. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Laird. You guys look alike. Very difficult to tell you, apart. So. All right. Oh, opposition. Okay.

Are you opposed? All right, come on up to the microphone. The floor is yours.

Oh, thank you. Good morning, Doctor Jamillah Moore, Vice President of Student Affairs. Excuse me, I was running, and enrollment management at San Francisco State University. I'm here to speak in respectful opposition to AB 1818. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the bill. We're in opposition as the state's extensive investments in evidence-based programs have shown substantial results.

For instance, the CSU supported 14,000 students through various housing assistance programs in 22-23, with an additional 7,600 students receiving emergency funding. When we allocate any campus space for programs for unhoused individuals, we must create an active safe zone during its use. This necessitates additional resources and security.

Such an approach is at odds with our housing programs, which aim to provide students with stable and safe accommodations behind secure doors in our residential communities or within our community partnerships with local hotels. We believe that our current housing programs and emergency services will continue to have a growing impact with legislative support.

Permitting students to sleep in their cars as proposed in AB 1818, would undermine these programs and would further convey a negative message about the dignity and worth of our students. If enacted, we believe that it will face.

Administrators and campuses will face the challenging decision of diverting funds and resources from effective existing programs that uphold student dignity to costly programs that pose significant liability for the university.

For example, this summer, we are in the middle of reapplying for a rapid rehousing program grant within the CSU which provides funding that directly supports housing stability programs and sources within AB 18 sources.

If AB 1818 passes along with navigating a decrease in funding for our existing programs, we will be required to redirect funds to implement this program. Doing so would compromise the integrity of our existing programs and our ability to support the number of students housing stability.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. You're opposed on behalf of the California State University or on behalf of whom?

On behalf of the California State University.

Okay, we're opposed. Thank you very much. All right, let me go back to opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1818, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, I'm sorry.

Able to ask questions. I don't want the witness to go away.

Sure. If you'd remain. Okay. Yes, here would be good. But right here. Right in the room. Right here. We don't want you to run again. All right. All right. Let's bring it back to Committee. Okay, go ahead. Yes.

Committee. So, Citrus College. I'm Kasha Hunt with Nossaman for Citrus College as well as North Orange County Community College as well as Mount SAC are in opposition.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Okay, back to Committee. Senator Roth, did you have a question?

Well, I have a couple. First to the author. When you talk about a pilot program and the number is five or 20, is that mandatory that 20 be selected, or must the institutions apply to participate in the pilot program?

Yes, it is mandatory that 20 be selected, but it's up to the chancellor's office to determine which of those 20 there will be.

What if the chancellor determines that there are not 20 institutions in the system, for example, in the community college system, that have appropriate facilities to allow this sort of program to succeed?

Well, that's why it's a pilot program, because the reason why we chose so many, because we know different campuses have different configurations. So, what best practices can be established no matter what configuration it is? Right? So, for instance, what happens when the most safe parking lot is in one place, but the nearest restroom is across campus?

What practices and protocols need to be put in place to do that? Right? And so that's why this is a study, to determine that different, depending on the different variations of the campus that best practices can be established and actually creating, doing this actually is an established best practice for homeless. We're just trying to do it now on college campuses.

I'm supportive, but I think moving forward, you may want to consider modifying the language slightly to direct the state chancellor, in the case of the community college system, for example, to select up to 20, which would allow the chancellor the flexibility to determine that there may only be 17 or 16 campuses that are properly equipped to safely and effectively implement the program.

Just a suggestion. Now to the opposition. So, given all the efforts that you've made, and my colleagues who've chaired Budget Sub. One have made over the past years, to try to bed down, so to speak, student housing on campuses and provide alternatives if brick and mortar doesn't exist.

Can you give me an idea of how many unhoused students exist, for example, in the CSU system or on your campus, or both?

Well, it vary. It varies from semester to semester because it is a on. We have basic needs offices, and so we can have 100 students one semester. We can have 125 the next semester. We can have 230 in one year.

These are unhoused students. Despite our best efforts.

Despite our best efforts, these are students who have come in asking for assistance with housing through our basic needs office. Because we also have housing coordinators, we have existing programs that are working with these students who have identified themselves in need of housing. And so, it does vary.

So, for example, we support it as a system in the CSU, 14,000 students through various housing assisting programs in 22-23 with about an additional 7,600 students receiving emergency housing.

But my question goes to this. Despite our best efforts, how many students remain unhoused? Due to the fact that we don't have brick-and-mortar housing and we don't have hotel vouchers. On your campus, for example, are there any?

Well, at San Francisco State, those students who have come forward, we helped 5,800 students in 22-23, and in 23-24 we helped 173 students who identified as in need of emergency housing.

Do we know whether there are students who remain unhoused at your particular CSU? Your CSU? Right?

There could be, but unless the student self-identifies, we don't know. The student has to come forward. Our process currently, Senator, is that students will identify that they need housing.

We will either work through our rapid rehousing program and our basic needs office to assist them, either with on campus housing or finding a hotel voucher to assist them if there's not space on campus. We currently, in San Francisco State, have space on campus.

So, we've been able to house students who are in between or in an emergency situation through our residential housing program.

Do you know whether or not, there are several campuses in the CSU system, do you know whether the system as a whole has an unmet need for housing? In other words, are there unhoused students semester to semester to semester because there are not enough rooms and not enough hotel vouchers?

Well, working through our rapid rehousing program, I'm sure there could be at every campus, some. But once again, the student has to identify. Self-identify. If they don't self-identify, we're not certain.

But these students that have come forward, to my knowledge, we've been able to assist students that have come forward and identified they need some assistance with housing.

All righty. Any further questions or comments, Senator Roth? No. All right, Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm struggling, maybe not so much with the heart of the bill, but around it, the context of the bill.

I'm trying to look past one of your lead witnesses, the Vice Chair at UCSA, who just walked up here with a river to the sea shirt, telling me that my folks should be erased from the entire map. So, I'm wondering what the agenda is for UCSA and what a priority is.

That's a very hard thing to get past. Let me put that one aside, as I'm forced to do all the time. I'm also struggling with the fact that the Assembly decided not to include higher education in the education bond to actually get dollars for housing students, refuse to even add student housing to the education bond.

So, it seems like we're putting a lot of demands on our higher education system without actually putting the dollars there to back up what we endeavor for. I do not want to see students on the street. We have students starving. It's a serious issue, but I want a serious solution.

So, I know the Committee amendments assert that the pilot program would be subject to appropriation. I guess I would concur with my colleague's recommendation there be some flexibility here. But I also. Yeah, I'm struggling with how to, how to vote, given all that extra context here. Hope you can appreciate my comments.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Roth.

Just a quick follow up, which was my point to the author. I think as you move.

If this bill moves out of the Committee, as you move forward to appropriations, I think you should take another look at the architecture of the bill and give the state chancellor the ability to assess, and, of course, the chancellor at the CSU as well, the system, the ability to assess what the need is at various campuses.

And if there is a need, if there is an unmet need for housing, and we have unhoused students, despite our best efforts to decide to participate in this pilot program and select campuses to do this, as opposed to a blanket 20 or a blanket five, which puts a burden on schools that may already have solved the problem because we don't have a study to look at that says. Just a suggestion.

Thank you for tolerating two bites at the apple, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Laird has moved the bill. All right. Would you like to close, Assembly Member Jackson? Right.

I appreciate the comments and suggestions of my colleagues here on the Committee. I would just say a few things. Number one, this is another way to identify those students, because they will have to actually apply for a special permit to do it.

And that's the perfect opportunity for the institution to then say, well, we actually have these additional services for you, and so therefore, the parking lot is no longer something you need to do. Right?

Again, this is meant to be a last resort, and the reason why we put upon appropriation is to ensure that the money is not being diverted from more effective programs. Right? But this is, again, an opportunity to make sure that there's a backstop. And so, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We're trying to be as thoughtful as possible, but again, this is actually a best practice. It's just a best practice that nobody wants to see at some point, but unfortunately, sometimes it might be necessary.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Madam Secretary, there's been a motion by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.

This is file item number 40, AB 1818. The motion is do pass is amended to Senate Appropriations. [Roll call] Four to one.

Four to one. We'll put that on call. All right, next I see Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. That would be file item number 15. If you're in the hallway on filing item number 15, AB 2023, please come into the committee hearing room. All right. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Today, I present Assembly Bill 2023, which creates parity in the housing element review process. The housing element must be timely and reflect the community's plan to address their share of the region's housing needs. Once the Department of Housing agrees that a local housing element complies with the law, the housing element has a rebuttable presumption of validity.

This means that HCD's findings of compliance receives deference in court, and any party challenging the element has a higher bar to meet to prove that HCD was incorrect. However, there is no equivalent provision if a city or county does not meet the requirements set by HCD or does not take any action regarding its adopted housing element. This loophole allows certain cities to disregard HCD's expert findings and bypass recommendations aimed at strengthening their housing elements to achieve compliance.

This oversight undermines the state's efforts to ensure that all jurisdictions adopt and enforce robust, legally compliant housing elements. While the majority of California jurisdictions do adopt housing elements that HCD deems compliant, there are exceptions. This oversight undermines the state's effort to ensure that all jurisdictions adopt and enforce robust, legally compliant housing elements.

I believe we all have a part in addressing the state's housing crisis. With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any question is Anya Lawler, the Legislative Advocate with the Public Interest Law Project, and Rafa Sonnenfeld, Policy Director with YIMBY Action.

Great. You have two minutes.

I will not take two minutes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Anya Lawler, again, on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project. PILP is a nonprofit legal services organization that does housing element advocacy statewide. We don't think it makes a lot of sense that HCD's findings receive more deference in court if they find the housing element to be in compliance than out of compliance.

We think this bill is just common sense and creates parity so that the expert agency's findings get deference in court regardless of whether they find a jurisdiction in or out of compliance with the law. We think this will reduce litigation, encourage local governments to simply get their housing elements done, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Sir, whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Rafa Sonnenfeld representing co-sponsors YIMBY Law, the legal arm of the nationwide pro-housing movement and an affiliate of YIMBY Action. This is a good governance bill that helps to ensure HCD's findings of housing element compliance are given deference in court regardless of what those findings are. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone in the room in support? This is now appropriate for me too testimony. Name, organization if you have one, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing California in support.

Thank you. No one else? Okay, now we will move to opponents. Do we have any primary opposition advocates? We do. Come have a seat at the table. And you've got two minutes. Whenever you're ready.

Perfect. Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended position. Our concerns are twofold. The main one being giving HCD more power for housing elements. Understanding that there's different certifications and standards that we need to reach, but are concerned about that.

And the language is going to be very for local cities on the ground. But I think, more importantly, our concern is with the section on the bill that would require local governments, when they're doing their housing element amendments, to do a full 120 days to look back at those amendments.

Despite all the public comment early in the process, we're very concerned that this is going to put cities on the defense, and we're going to continue to struggle with getting our housing elements in compliance without specific findings, as well as going through the public transparency process again and again.

We're all for public transparency, but believe that we do our due diligence early and are concerned that this will further delay local governments from being able to get a certified housing element and are very concerned about the language in the bill. So we've offered those amendments to the author's office and staff and look forward to those continued conversations, but in respectful opposition today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the room in opposition, come up here and provide me too testimony.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Eastvale in respectful opposition, and on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, respectfully opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Seriously? That's it? Okay. Very good. We'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have more? Wait, there's more.

Sorry, I was running here. This is Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership, and actually in support, but we just missed it.

Okay. Thanks for coming and sharing. All right, pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Senator Stern?

Yeah, thank you. Thoughts on, just want to get your response to opposition. Willingness, openness on the amendments from League of Cities?

We have listened to the opposition as we've made our way. We're always willing to listen more, but this is really for the narrow group of cities that are using stall and delay tactics. And we have seen this. We know that this is not the majority of cities. We know that there are very good actors in housing that want to do all they can to address the housing crisis. But we do have some cities that have used every tactic to not having a compliant housing element. If you want to add any?

Sure. Unfortunately, the amendments that the league has offered, we think take the bill in the opposite direction. But if we can come to some agreement on alternate language that would address their concerns that is different than what they've offered, we're obviously willing to have those conversations. But we really think that the bill is fairly common sense and that...

So kind of no is the answer. From the League, just are there amended amendments that you all have been thinking about? Because my concern is just giving such weight without this rebuttable presumption piece, that sort of HCD's word is infallible and will never be challenged.

Even when complicated issues around surveying land, new developments, specifically in fire zones where, you know, I have extra sensitivity and, you know, grading and various sort of access issues and things like that are tough to take into account up here in Sacramento. But have you guys given any thought as a reasonable counting here just to, so I know what's coming on the floor.

Yeah. So the ones that we looked at, looking at the, we're still going to give the rebuttal presumption. We are just going to say that their findings are valid, meaning that what they say either way goes. That was the language that we had offered. That was from our legal counsel.

The back half, which I think is the bigger concern, is the timelines for the amendments process for the housing elements. That's going to be concerning for our cities to listen to HCD, get that feedback and do what's needed to meet and get a certified housing element. That's where our concern is. And we don't feel like that.

If the goal is for each CD to have a stronger challenge in court, we're willing to give on that. But to make it more clear about what that looks like, but more so, look at the timelines aspect and see if we can strike that language. I believe this is section four, but I can't remember.

I guess where this goes is we're probably going to end up in builder's remedy land in a lot of these cases, and I still know that that's an unresolved issue. So that's my challenge on the bill, is how to land, not knowing where that's going to land. So anyhow, thank you for letting me weigh in here.

Any... Nothing else. Somebody like to make a motion? Okay, moved by Senator Durazo. Secretary... I guess I should let you close, huh? We have 70 bills today, so, you know.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

This is file item number 15, AB 2023. The motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] Three to two.

All right, three to two. We'll leave it open for Members to add on.

Thank you.

Now, I would like to bring up Assembly Member Pacheco. But I've been told I have to go in file order. So I guess it's Mr. Ting, who's not going to be a gentleman and go ahead and take it. Okay, let's go. So we have just one bill.