Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the July 2nd, 2024, Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We will start as a Subcommittee. If you are an Assemblymember on the Appropriations Committee, please feel free to join us. We have 96 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website: assembly.ca.gov/todaysevents. We encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates.

We will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today, and for which the author waived presentation before the close of our regular order hearing. Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill.

The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door. I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules.

Please be aware that violations of these rules or violations of general courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. We are not going to establish a quorum because we don't have enough members here. And we'll wait on the consent calendar since we don't have a quorum.

Okay, I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr. Patterson while I present Senator Caballero's bill.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Member. SB 1481 is the second claims bill carried by the chair of the Appropriations Committee each year to provide appropriation authority for legal judgments and settlements approved by the Department of Justice and Department of Finance.

This urgency bill appropriates 19.3 million from the General Fund to DOJ for the payment of five claims against the state. These judgments and settlements are binding state obligations. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amount required for the claims will revert to the General Fund.

With me today are representatives from the Department of Justice who can answer any technical questions about individual claims. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Morning, Mr. Patterson, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss SB 1481 with you on behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta. We also would like to thank the Committee staff for the detailed bill analysis and to Chair Wicks for presenting today.

Similar to the first claims bill that was brought before you in April, SB 1481 is a bill that would appropriate $19,289,000 from the General Fund to the Attorney General for the payment of claims, settlements, or judgments against the state arising from five specified actions in which the state was represented by the Attorney General.

This bill is one of several bills carried by the Chairs of the Appropriations Committees to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by the DOJ and the Department of Finance. These settlements were entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel and our binding state obligations.

Included in this bill are settlements in the Aubin, Davis, Soluetes, Water Curtailment, and Welchen cases. Joining today are supervising Deputy Attorney General Tony Hochul and Deputy Attorneys General Allison Goldsmith and Scott Cavanaugh. As some of our lead attorneys, if you have specific questions, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Let's go to members of the public like to speak in favor of the bill. Members of the public in opposition? Department of Finance, you want to speak?

Thank you, Assemblymember. The Department of Finance supports this bill because these appropriations will pay judgment and settlement claims against the state. Thank you.

I don't have any questions. Any questions from Committee Members? Okay, you can close. We don't have a quorum. We won't. Can't get a motion and second.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

When the time comes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, would you like to come present?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I am pleased to present SB-1137, which would make California the pioneering state to recognize intersectionality in our civil rights laws by clarifying that discrimination is prohibited not only because of one's protected trait, but any combination of two or more protective traits. This Bill has nominal costs.

Under current law, all individuals are protected from discrimination, but these cases are exacerbated when an individual has experienced discrimination based on accommodation of intersection of protected classes. For example, a black woman brings a case forward in a discrimination case, and she may also need to address issues of wage theft.

For example, she may need to address her race and her gender because she's black, but she's also paid less because she's a woman.

In cases where intersectional discrimination occurs, the defense may attempt to use the separation of characteristics to defeat the claim entirely, meaning that when folks bring these claims, they'll have to leave part of themselves behind and not have a remedy for all of their identity that has been violated.

Courts throughout the nation have ruled on these cases inconsistently and largely on a case-by-case basis. And intersectional discrimination is not just limited to race and gender. Discrimination can also be expressed by one's age, one's national origin, or again, a combination of these protected classes.

The analysis states and I'll just repeat again, that this Bill has nominal costs due to codifying existing case law. I want to thank you so much for hearing this case, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify for any technical questions you may have is Mariko Yoshihara with the California Employment Lawyers Association.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Mariko Yoshihara, representing the California Employment Lawyers Association. We're a proud co-sponsor of this Bill, along with Equal Rights Advocates and Legal Aid At Work. As the Senator mentioned, this Bill clarifies existing law around intersectional discrimination to ensure that court courts get this right.

This type of clarity and guidance helps avoid unnecessary litigation or having to address this issue on appeal, both outcomes that result in cost savings. For example, in the case Lam v. University of Hawai'i, an Asian American female Professor sued for discrimination based on her race and gender.

The lower court ruled for the employer, who argued, we couldn't have discriminated against her because of her gender because our hiring committee supported white women, and we couldn't have discriminated against her because of her race because our hiring committee supported Asian men.

The issue went up on appeal and the 9th Circuit reversed, recognizing that, quote, Asian women are subjected to a set of stereotypes and assumptions shared neither by Asian men nor by White women. In consequence, they may be targeted for discrimination even in the absence of discrimination against Asian men or White women.

Thus, by codifying the framework of intersectionality under our anti-discrimination laws, SB-1137 will provide important guidance to the courts and will help ensure that individuals who have multiple intersecting identities are recognized and protected under our existing anti-discrimination laws. For these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Senators. Tia Kuntz with the California Coalition for Worker Power. Here to give a me too.

Good morning. Dawn Modkins with the Southern California Black Worker Hub. Giving a me too.

Thank you. We'll go to Department of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Christian Beltran with the Department of Finance. Specifically, Finance is neutral on this Bill. As a cost to enforce this clarification of existing law will be minor and observable. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, you may close.

Well, as a woman, as a Black woman, I am here to say I'm representing so many of us who have these different identities that our laws protect. And we want to make sure the court understands that California intends for everyone to be protected and whole when it comes to our civil rights laws. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And greatly appreciate your work in this space and all the other things you lead on. When we establish a quorum, we'll get your Bill out.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Mr. Arambula, would you like to present for Mr. Roth, SB-1249?

And if you are a Senator presenting in Committee, Appropriations Committee, and you know who you are, you can come present any time. We're looking for authors.

Thank you, Madam Chair and assembly members.

Senate Bill 1249 requires the Department of Aging to reform its Administration of the Older Americans Act by developing, in consultation with the area agencies on aging and other stakeholders, key new provisions, including performance metrics, core programs and services, funding formulas, and a statewide engagement plan to improve outreach to underrepresented populations and underserved communities by September of 2026.

The bill further permits counties to petition CDA via letters of intent to be considered for designation as the area agency on aging that serves its local jurisdiction. As noted in the committee analysis, the department has deemed any cost to the state absorbable within existing resources. When the time is appropriate, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Do we have any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any - oh.

Primary threw me off. I apologize.

Oh, sorry.

That's all right. Kathy Mossberg of the California Association of Area Agencies. We support.

Great. Thank you. No, you're great.

Any additional folks who should express support or opposition? We will bring it back to committee. Any questions? Respectfully ask - sorry, I'm not closing. Would you like to close?

When the time's right, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. They should make, like, songs with that phrase in it. Great. Well, we'll hopefully establish a quorum here soon and be able to move the bill out.

If you are an assembly member on this committee, if you could come so we could establish quorum, that would be great. And if you are a center presenting a bill in this committee, we are looking for authors. Okay, I think we have enough to establish a quorum, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call].

We have a quorum, team. Good job. Okay. With that, I want to dispense with the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? We got lots of motions. Some seconds. Great. Madam Secretary?

Consent calendar: following bills are all senate bills: 956 Cortese, 985 Ochoa Bogh, 1005 Ashby, 1027 Menjivar, 1067 Smallwood-Cuevas, 1068 Eggman, 1113 Newman, 1136 Stern, 1198 Roth, 1329 Committee on Education, 1336 Archuleta,1352 Wahab, 1395 Becker, 1410 Ochoa Bogh, 1412 Ochoa Bogh, 1427 Allen, 1429 Ochoa Bogh, 1473 Laird, 1476 Blakespear, 1478 Nguyen, 1512 Committee on Housing, 1518 Committee on Public Safety, 1521 Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions, and 1526 Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. [Roll Call]. Eight to zero.

Eight to zero. That is out, but we'll let folks add on. And do you want to do Miss Dixon now? Actually, we'll open that up for Miss Dixon, too.

[Roll Call].

[Roll Call].

Great. Okay. I see Senator Padilla has joined us. Would you like to come and present SB 990?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. As the committee is aware, I've waived presentation on 764. Just for the record, I'm here to present SB 990. As you know, California has suffered a record number of catastrophic natural disasters, which will only increase in frequency and intensity as climate change worsens.

Climate disasters touch many Californians, but recent studies pretty strongly indicate that the LGBTQ-plus community are disproportionately impacted by disasters, both because of preexisting marginalization and because of discriminatory disaster response policies.

LGBT individuals, particularly those of color, face worse displacement conditions compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals biased in response programs, failure to recognize unique family structures, barriers to obtaining proffer identification, and anti-LGBTQ practices at some disaster relief services provided by some organizations can all compound to heighten the risks of our communities during a disaster.

SB 990 would require that the California Governor's Office of ES update their emergency plan to include policies and practices for local governments and NGO's to more equitably serve these communities. And to craft them, they would be required to coordinate directly with representatives of the community and subject matter experts.

Today to testify is Nicholas Weiss, who is representing the Office of the California Insurance Commissioner.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Nicholas Weiss, Deputy Legislative Director with the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. First, I'd like to thank Senator Padilla for bringing this important measure. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is a proud co-sponsor of this bill with Equality California.

As noted in the committee analysis, it has minimal impacts to Cal OES. There is no fiscal impact to the Department of Insurance. So why SB 990? LGBTQ-plus individuals are overrepresented in at risk populations for whom disasters are more likely to bring death, displacement, water insecurity, unsanitary conditions, a shortage of food, and a fear of crime after disaster.

In recent years, the legislature has strengthened California's emergency preparedness by requiring Cal OES to integrate the needs of vulnerable populations into emergency management planning, such as the access and functional needs population. SB 990 seeks to build on those efforts by incorporating the unique needs of LGBTQ-plus people into the state emergency plan.

Insurance Commissioner Lada has traveled the state during and after natural and other disasters and has witnessed the human tragedy and suffering endured by Californians as a result of these events, especially with these recent heat waves that we're going through.

We must be inclusive of all populations in our disaster response efforts, and this bill is an important step in that direction. On behalf of insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Craig Pulsipher, Equality California, proud co-sponsor and strong support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any me-toos in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file, Madam Chair.

Great. We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Would you like to close?

As indicated, the impacts of compliance would be minor and observable. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. That enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out with Republicans not voting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And we have Senator Wahab next. Senator Wahab, I believe you are presenting SB 1356.

Yes. All right. Chair, colleagues, and members of the public, SB 1356 requires judicial counsel to consider the role of gender in court proceedings and meeting the needs of litigants in unique situations of vulnerability when developing training. This bill would expand upon existing training to ensure a gender perspective is incorporated across the court system.

We work collaboratively with Judicial Council on the language in print. Judicial Council has indicated to our office that any associated costs for this legislation are absorbable. My witness here is Ann Ravel.

Ann has served as an elected governor on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, a member of the Judicial Council of the State of California, and chair of the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

She was nominated to be the Federal Election Commission by President Barack Obama on June 21, 2013 and served as chair of the commission for 2015 and Vice Chair for 2014 before leaving in 2017. She's also former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

She's an adjunct Professor at UC Berkeley Law School of Counsel in two law firms in the Bay Area and works with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of Mexico on gender equity and judging with a gender perspective.

You may begin.

Thank you. As Senator Wahab indicated, the Judicial Council already has a training program relating to domestic violence alone, as well as the impact of domestic violence on children. And so, this is not going to be a fiscal problem either for the Judicial Council or this Committee. So, I would ask that you think about this.

I mean, it was interesting to hear the discussion on intersectionality because this is also essentially about that question. It's about making sure that judicial decisions are fair, that there is no discrimination, and that the litigants before the courts recognize that they are being treated honestly and fairly.

And that is why this kind of sensitivity training is necessary for the Judicial Council to implement on behalf of women and minorities in this state. Thank you.

Do we have any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any me-toos in opposition? Department of Finance?

We have a motion. Second, would you like to close?

No file, Madam Chair.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. That is out. It's do pass recommendation; it's out with Republicans not voting. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, and we will allow folks to add onto the consent calendar.

Consent calendar add-ons. [Roll call].

Okay, we'll let folks add on to that who are not here. We have Senator Portantino here if you would like to present SB 607.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. SB 607 is a simple bill it has prescribers of controlled substances containing an opioid to discuss risk and dangers of opioid and opioid addiction to their patients. Existing law requires a prescriber to discuss specific information with their patients, but only requires them to do so when consulting with a minor.

This extends it to others. We see no fiscal impact on the State of California, but we think this has a significant impact to have patients be educated and apprised of their situation as they get prescriptions. And we think it's good policy and good fiscal sense and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I like the nail colors today.

Bella came out with the three colors and who am I to argue with my daughter, right?

Exactly. Great. Do we have any primary witnesses in support? Any folks wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition?

You got me.

Hopefully in support. Any additional folks which express opposition? Department of Finance?

No file, Madam Chair.

Okay. A motion? A second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. That's out with Republicans not voting. Thank you, Senator. And let's go back to the ones that were presented while we were in a subcommittee. Can we get a motion on SB 1481 with a motion?

A second. And that enjoys a do pass recommendation that's out on an a roll call. Can we get a motion on SB 14. Sorry, 1249. With a motion and a second. And that enjoys a do pass recommendation that's out on an a roll call. And a motion on SB 1137?

That enjoys a do pass recommendation and that's out on a roll call. And we are looking for Senators Skinner, Wiener, Umberg, Cortese and Bradford. If anyone knows where they are, they are happy to join us here in the Appropriations Committee.

Hello, Senator. You're up to bat. And if you wouldn't mind, can we start with SB 909?

Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 909 is a modification of the Stephen M. Thompson physician Core loan repayment program. It simply changes the amount of loan forgiveness from $105,000 to $150,000. And it supports those who wish to serve underserved medical communities. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support?

It's me.

Just you? Okay, we'll take you. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? Department of Finance?

The Department of Finance does not have an official position on this bill. However, notes that the requirements in the bill could result in additional general fund cost pressures as it authorizes the use of funds for additional specialties from an alternative fund source.

Additionally, the bill expands the practice settings to any facility or setting, which could create an additional General fund pressure for this program. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. And that enjoys a do pass recommendation. And that is out on an a roll call.

Alrighty. Thank you very much.

And 901.

SB 901 is a bill that addresses issues concerning members of the National Guard, California National Guard, as well as the state guard, that may both hold and advocate views of extremism. Extremism with respect to, for example, racial supremacy or extremism with respect to overthrow of either the state or the national government.

It is my view that we should not be training folks to use lethal force if they believe and advocate that the government should be overthrown. So, it simply says, those who believe and advocate in those areas, they may not enlist nor be commissioned in the state National Guard or the state guard.

And if they are members that they are then, in essence, fired. To be clear, they're not court martialed, they're administratively discharged. Urgent. I vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks wish to add on support? Any witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room in opposition? Okay. Department of Finance.

No file, Madam Chair.

Okay. Questions from Committee? We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

Urge an aye vote.

Great. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. That is out with Republicans. Not voting, though. We will leave it open. Alrighty. Thank you very much.

Pleasure doing business with you all.

Thank you.

Okay. While we're waiting for authors, I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please, please read the suspense calendar.

The following bills are all senate bills: 26 Amburg, 37 Caballero, 85 Wiener, 242 Skinner, 245 Hurtado, 254 Skinner, 265 Hurtado, 294 Wiener, 333 Cortese, 442 Limon, 495 Dodd, 575 Wahab, 733 Glazer, 764 Padilla, 768 Caballero, 796 Alvarado-Gil, 914 Umberg, 930 Laird, 941 Skinner, 958 Dodd, 969 Weener, 972 Min.

978 Seyarto, 989 Ashby, 997 Porntino, 1014 Dodd, 1025 Eggman, 1046 Laird, 1050 Bradford, 1073 Skinner, 1092 Blakespear, 1094 Limon, 1101 Limon, 1108 Ochoa Bogh, 1119 Newman, 1134 Caballero, 1159 Dodd, 1170 Menjivar, 1187 Mcguire, 1197 Alvarado-Gil, 1207 Dahle, 1214 Min.

Nguyen 1281, Menjivar 1289, Roth 1315, Archuleta 1319, Wahab 1321, Wahab 1331, Bradford 1341, Allen 1384, Dodd 1396, Alvarado-Gil 1403, Bradford 1415, Glacier 1425, Gonzalez 1442, Ochoa Bogh 1443, Jones 1454, Ashby 1455, Ashby 1463, Niello, and 1465 Archuleta.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved it. Okay, we will open up the consent calendar.

[Roll Call].

Okay, that is now 11 to 1, and I just, we had a couple bills on call. Thank you, Mister Hart, for joining us. SB 990 from Senator Padilla enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out with Republicans not voting. SB 607 from Senator Portantino enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out with Republicans not voting.

And SB 1137 from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out on AB roll call. And now we are looking for Senators Bradford, Cortese, Skinner and Wiener.

Welcome to Appropriations Committee.

Can it be any colder in here?

Hello, Senator Bradford.

Notwithstanding the policy objectives of the Bill, finance is opposed to this Bill because it may result in additional costs, including General Fund costs that are not included in the current fiscal plan. Additionally, this Bill may result in costs associated with the creation of a state reimbursable mandate.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You may present.

Okay. I'm here to present SB 1020. And which will prohibit law enforcement agencies from utilizing shooting targets that look like an ethnic group. In a multitude of studies, researchers established that participants would shoot at armed targets quicker if they resembled African Americans compared to if they were white.

Participants also are less likely to shoot an unarmed white target compared to an African American one. These response times show subconscious racial bias, which leads toward an increased risk of deadly harm towards certain ethnic groups. SB 2010 is a common sense measure that will ensure implicit racial biases are not presented. And our law enforcement officers and they.

That all people are treated fairly. And this Bill is minor and exorbitable. And I respect last four aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses and support?

Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Not that I'm aware of.

Chris Lawson, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any me toos in opposition? Department of Finance.

Darlene Crummity in support.

Kim Mims. Also in support. Thank you.

Finance also notes concerns that it is not clear how the requirements of the Bill will be enforced and whether any specific agency will be responsible for enforced activities.

Thank you. Any questions from Committee? We have a motion and a second. Senator. Would you like to close?

I think the costs associated with this Bill are overstated. Law enforcement would still be able to use their current supply of targets. Once those are extended. I mean, I utilized. You would create new ones that aren't racially biased. It wouldn't cost them any more to do that than the current development right now. So I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. That enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out on AB roll call with Mister Ta not voting. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, madam Vice Chair, for joining us. We will open up the consent calendar.

Add ons for consent.{Roll Call]

Okay, and SB 901 Umberg enjoys a do pass recommendation that is out with Republicans, not voting with Miss Sanchez voting aye.

Hello, Senator. You please feel free to step up. And I know Senator Skinner is running here, and you just beat her. So, you are presenting SB 1037, I believe?

Correct. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 1037, which is sponsored by the Attorney General, will improve incentives for cities to comply with ministerial approval laws and housing element law.

Today, if a city in bad faith arbitrarily just refuses to grant a permit that they're required to grant, or refuses to enact a compliant housing element, if the Attorney General eventually sues that city, which happens very rarely and only in the most extensive, extreme cases, and it goes all the, with all the warnings that lead up to litigation, it goes all the way through litigation, all the way to a judgment being entered against the city.

And that's what we're talking about here. It goes all the way to a judgment today. There is no financial consequence for that city because they have now, if they lose and get the judgment entered against them, they have multiple months to come into compliance and not have any penalty. That makes no sense.

We would never tolerate that in any other situation. There's no incentive for a city to avoid litigation other than attorney's fees. And so, what this bill will do is provide that in that kind of situation, that there will be financial penalties against the city. Those penalties will not be forfeited by the cities.

They will go into a fund held essentially in escrow for the city, for use for affordable housing in that city. So, it's not going to go into the general fund. So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify is Jana Staniford, Legislative Advocate for the Attorney General.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Jana Staniford, Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate in the Office of the Attorney General. And I have with me Alex Fische, Special Assistant Attorney General for Housing.

On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bona, I want to start by thanking Senator Wiener for authoring this important bill, which the Attorney General is proud to sponsor. As you know, California is facing a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis.

The legislature has passed strong laws in recent years to address this crisis, including over a dozen ministerial approval laws. But those laws will only move the needle to address the housing crisis if local governments follow them.

Attorney General Rob Bonta has made enforcement of housing laws a top priority and has taken advantage of some of the most taken action against some of the most egregious violators. But the remedies available under current law are not effectively deterring local governments from violating the law in the first place.

Effective monetary penalties will serve as a deterrent and will strengthen the state's hand when the Attorney General warns local governments that they're out of compliance.

The Department of Justice does not have any new fiscal impacts associated with this bill, and penalty monies will be earmarked for affordable housing in the penalized jurisdiction, which reverts to a general pool if they're unused by the jurisdiction.

After five years, this will ensure that penalty funds will be reinvested in helping solve the housing supply and affordability crisis. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You're for technical, or do you want to add on?

I've learned as a litigator not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thank you.

Any other additional folks in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay. Department of Finance?

No file, Madam Chair.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Okay. Senator, thank you so much for your work in the space. I'd love to be added on as a co-author. And would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. That enjoys a do pass recommendation. That's out on a B roll call. And I believe you were also presenting only on?

Yes.

SB 294.

Yes, and thank you for indulging me, colleagues, in my eight years in the legislature. This is only the second time that I have presented on a bill going on to suspense. I think you were here the first time, and I only do so in extreme and outrageous circumstances.

And I have to say, respectfully to the Department of Managed Healthcare, that the cost estimate placed on this bill is extreme and outrageous.

I want to stress that the price tag that DMHC has placed on this bill is a bill that does not expand insurance coverage and that does nothing more than require health plans to provide the coverage that they're required to provide and stop denying covered behavioral health care treatment to children. This bill is about private health plans.

It's the plans who will be paying for the coverage that they are already required to provide, not the state. All the bill does is ensure that these families, when their kids are struggling, actually get an independent medical review, which many of them don't even know that they're entitled to get.

And we know that when families invoke the independent medical review, they overwhelmingly win and get their children the coverage to which they're entitled. So, the cost is just outrageous. And I just want to say that I know it's going to suspense today, but I do want to make that point. And I appreciate it.

Thank you. Would you like to - primary witnesses and support?

Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members, I'm David Campos, Deputy County Executive. I'm here on behalf of the County of Santa Clara. We're the second largest public health system in the state, the largest county in Northern California. And you wonder, why are we here?

And we are here because we serve the very children and families that are impacted by this bill. Our board of supervisors last year went on a county wide discussion, a series of town hall meetings with members of the public, residents, and we heard from them directly that they have claims, legitimate claims, that are being denied.

And what ends up happening when those claims are denied is that the County of Santa Clara, the public, the taxpayers, are stuck paying for services that should be provided by these carriers.

And our analysis shows that by the time individuals get to the county, because those services were denied, throughout the process of getting them to that county presence. You're talking about claims costing 114,000, 86,000 per individual. Putting aside the fact that these are folks who need these services and we're not given to them.

So this is a very important step. We appreciate the work of Senator Wiener and hope that we end up doing the right thing by a residence.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Lishaun Francis with Children Now, we really are proud sponsors of the bill and thanks Senator Wiener for his support here. One thing that we like to talk about is the human cost of this bill.

I know that DMHC has done a lot of work to think about how much it will cost their system, but really, we're talking and seeing parents who are spending 25 to 40,000 dollars out of pocket when private insurers don't pay for things that they've already promised.

So, while we agree with the state's position that this is a year to be fiscally prudent, it's especially important that everyone plays its role and plays the part in that fiscal prudence.

So, it is fiscally prudent for health plans to make sure that they're covering things that they say they would, so that it doesn't fall to families, counties and schools to pay the costs at the time that it is appropriate. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Neil with the County of San Diego also in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any me-toos in opposition? Okay. Department of Finance?

No file, Madam Chair.

Okay. Yeah. Do we have any - oh, sorry. Right, yes. Do we have any questions from committee? Okay. Would you like to close?

At the approiate time, if it comes off suspense, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And that's moved to the suspense file. Thanks for your presentation.

Thank you so much.

Thanks. Senator Skinner, you are up. Thank you for the mad dash from the swing space. And I believe we are waiting on also Mister Cortese as our last presenter after Miss Skinner. So, Mister Cortese, if you'd like to come join us, that'd be great, maybe.

Thanks so much, chair Members. SB 1022 addresses, or rather responds to, the fact that our civil rights Department investigates thousands of workplace, housing, and other type of discrimination complaints annually. Those complaints based on race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability. And in investigating those complaints, the civil rights Department mediates and settles many. But sometimes they find.

So usually that's an individual complaint. But then they may find a pattern where over a couple of years, multiple different individuals will have complained, submitted a complaint around the same entity, meaning the same employer or the same housing operator or what have you.

And rather than just looking at the individual complaint, the Civil Rights Department then does what is known as directors complaints. They are able to. They look at them as a whole.

It's the fact that many different complaints came in over a couple of years against a certain workplace or a certain housing operator, in effect, elevates it to, hey, maybe there's a systemic problem here. And when it elevates to that, they call it the director's complaint.

And what SB 1022 does is give Sar civil rights Department the ability to investigate those type of systemic violations over no more than a seven year period. SB 1022 does not change the statute of limitations for lawsuits filed by an individual.

It only affects what we know as directors complaints, and it brings California closer in alignment to the federal process for such types of systemic complaints. And that federal process has no time limits. However, in SB 1022 we provide a no more than seven year look.

So what it really does is give the Department the ability to investigate those and then to mediate. Then perhaps the intent is to lessen lawsuits rather than having to jump immediately into filing a lawsuit against the entity for which the complaints have been made.

It allows the Department the ability to do those kind of mediation and hopefully avoid lawsuits. And I think that's why the analysis, the appropriate Committee analysis, indicates that there are not significant state costs and that this Bill may result in possible cost savings, because hopefully it results in settlements versus lawsuits.

And now I would like my primary witness, Craig Pulsfer, from Equality California, to testify.

Good morning, chair and Members. Craig Pulsfer, on behalf of Equality California proud cosponsor of SB 22 1022 which would make several technical changes to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as the Senator noted, to allow the civil rights Department to better address long running cases of systemic discrimination affecting groups or classes of people.

For many California workers, the civil rights Department provides the only remedy, especially for those who are Low wage, may not have the ability to seek independent counsel to litigate their own claims.

This Bill will allow the Department to use its limited resources more efficiently to enforce our civil rights laws and help to benefit as many victims as possible. Possible. As noted, the Bill would not require any additional resources for the Civil Rights Department.

Instead, it will likely result in efficiencies and cost savings for the Department and the courts, since the Bill will make it easier to handle multiple discrimination complaints in one group action rather than filing individual actions. This is a straightforward measure to allow the Department to effectively carry out its mission, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? Any me toos in opposition? Okay. Department of Finance.

No file.

Great. Any questions from Committee? A motion and a second. And with that, Miss Skinner, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

That is enjoys a do pass recommendation that's out on AB roll call. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, would you like to proceed?

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair. I'm pleased to present SB 1300 by Senator Cortese. A Bill sponsored by NAMI California. SB 1300 will help communities prepare for closure of psychiatric units and maternity wards in hospitals. The Bill has minor or observable costs. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any witnesses in support? Anyone in opposition? No. Okay. Motion. Second.

Please.

The Department of Finance does not have an official position on this Bill. However, finance notes that this Bill could result in future unknown General Fund cost pressures to the state. Specifically, this bill's reporting requirements, may result in unknown General Fund cost pressures to support interventions in communities impacted by the closures.

Finance also notes that significant demand to prioritize an expedite licensing could lead to a fiscal impact.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? No. And we have a motion. Second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. zero, do we? Motion is due. Pass on a B Roll call.

Consent calenda for add on{Roll Call]

Okay. And we. Let's see. Okay, I think Mister Bryan and Mister Haney are going to be on their way in a second, so we'll wait for them. We can also. zero, sorry.

We will open up. Thank you. Very compelling presentation indeed. We will open up the consent calendar.

Let's open it up for public comment. Anyone wish to express public comment?

Monica Kirkland from Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County in strong support of SB 37.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning, my name is Kim Mims. I'm with the Coalition for Adjacent Equitable California American Redress Coalition of California and Amend, the mass media group. I'm here in strong support of SB 1050, SB 1403 and SB 1331. And respectfully ask for an vote. Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Darlene Crumminy, I'm with the coalition for just Equitable California, as well as the American Redress Coalition of the Bay Area, and I support all of Senator Bradford's bills.

Thank you. Step up to the mic.

Thank you very much. Chris Lawson, Coalition for Justin Ecwidville, California. Also on behalf of the American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento, American Redress Coalition of California Bay Area Lineage Equity and Advancement Project and the California Black Lineage Society.

Also here on behalf of the California organizations for reparations, all Members of which support SB 1403, SB 1331, SB 1050 by Senator Bradford. Thank you.

[ Roll Call]

Purposes of add on.{Roll Call]

Meeting adjourned.

Great. Thank you, Mister Haney. Yep. Okay. Thank you for joining us, Mister Bryan. For purposes of add on the consent calendar, please call roll.

Thank you very much. Okay, Mister Haney is joining us. Let's take a vote on the consent calendar.