Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Committee on Human Services will now come to order. Good afternoon. We are holding our Committee hearing here in room 2200 of 1021 O Street. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business.

We do not have a quorum yet, but we do have two authors present. I want to proceed with the Bill presentations out of respect to their time. And once we establish a quorum, we'll conduct role and entertain any motions at that time.

I just want to first announce we have 11 bills on today's agenda, five of which are on the proposed consent calendar. And just to summarize the bills that are on the proposed consent Calendar, file item 3, SB422, Grayson. File item 5, SB582, Stern. File item 6, SB761, Ashby. File item 9, SB412 Limon.

And file item 11, SJR3 by myself and Senator Weber Pearson. So we'll proceed with our Bill presentations and want to welcome Senator Cortese to the Committee and we'll start first with his Bill, Senate Bill 33. And good afternoon, Senator.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Happy to be here in a sense, bringing this Bill SB33 back again. There was a prior version of what is now SB33, which you know, has moved pretty well through the legislative process, as you'll hear in the presentation.

Any bill like this is always going to have an appropriation issue that needs to be met. We're very hopeful this year because of some extra work that we've done that we can meet the appropriation need of the bill. This bill's sometimes called the California Soar program.

It would provide unhoused high school seniors $1,000 per month for four months as they transition out of high school to provide a stable path into the workforce or post secondary education, as the case may be. There are more than 280,000 students within California's K12 system right now who are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness.

This number has increased by more than 50% in the last decade. The Mckinney Vento Act, a federal act, of course, provides dollars to school districts to support unhoused students. Through Mckinney Vento Liaisons, each school district can provide students with resources and support while they are working to attain their diplomas.

However, once a student graduates, this support system doesn't follow them into adulthood, meaning, as I sometimes like to say as they walk across the stage with their diploma and reach the other side the Mckinney Vento benefits, in effect, end right there in terms of high school seniors.

There'll be about 24,000 students who are graduating from high school each year into homelessness. And we've done a lot of work to try to peg that number this year because it's been growing. It isn't a fixed or stasis kind of a situation.

Perhaps that's not a surprise, but it also, I think, punctuates the need to make sure that that's not a pipeline to street homelessness, or what I would call adult homelessness at that point.

More importantly, many youth become subject to a phenomenon known as summer melt, where a student has every intention of attending college, as if you ask them that question or you look at their enrollment or admissions paperwork at the end of May, but due to financial constraints, they're unable to, and they don't end up enrolling just a few months later.

So this bill is trying to attack that need just for those few months. In recognition of that need to extend support to our Most vulnerable students, SB33 establishes a statewide guaranteed income program that will provide, no strings attached, cash assistance to empower youth to enter the workforce or pursue higher education.

Frankly, the way the bill is set up, I just want to be clear. Whether they're entering an apprenticeship program or what they're doing is really not the point here. The point is to bridge that period of time. This bill directly mirrors SB739 and actually two ongoing programs in Santa Clara County that deal with essentially Mckinney Vento youth.

There's SB739, which became part of the Budget Act a few years ago, which supports transition age foster youth. And we also have a program addressing this graduating class, if you will, in Santa Clara County.

You can ask questions about those programs from our witnesses, if you like, but those programs have been successful, and it was our way of trying to get a pilot going while we're waiting for the possibility of an appropriation to bring this kind of a program statewide.

With us here today is Melanie Jimenez Perez, Guaranteed Basic Income program manager in Santa Clara County. I happen to think that's just a great title because a few years ago you would have never heard of such a thing as a guaranteed basic income program manager in any county. That shows how much progress we're making in this regard.

She administers that program, of course, and DJ Anthony Gaffield, a youth advocate for Youth Invincibles, and he's here to speak about his lived experience. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you so much for joining us today. And you'd like to start your testimony. You'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator Cortese, for having me. I will be brief, but as the Senator alluded to, I have been working on guaranteed basic income since 2020. I am from the County of Santa Clara who is a co sponsor of this bill.

And we are a co sponsor of this bill because we have seen firsthand how this can not only transform the lives of those who are enrolled in the program, but also those who are delivering the program. It's changed the way that we see services.

As the center alluded to before, we had these hard lines where one day you have guidance and you have an adult to serve you, and the next day you don't. So we've seen that with our foster youth that this help and this extra guidance comes a little bit too late.

The intervention is that when they're already 25 years old. By focusing on a younger age, we're giving them options they can look at enrolling in high school, in continuation school, getting their high school diploma, which many of them didn't think was attainable because they've spent the last couple of years focused on housing.

So we see that now they have options that we have a current pilot with 175 unhoused students. They are an average age of 18.

They are in desperate need of guidance because they relied on their Mckinney, Vento AC liaisons not just to get them through high school, but to know what their options are and how they can continue to succeed in a very bleak environment. There are vulnerable clientele that don't have access to transportation.

So we found that we needed to go out into the community to provide them with services so that they knew there was somebody who was still checking in on them and who still was going to be in their corner. As a result, 120 of them are continuing their education.

Unfortunately, some of them are still struggling just to keep a stable roof over their head. And our program provides that guidance as well in ensuring that they know all the programs that are possibly open to them.

And this is important for you to also understand that these are 18 year olds who are stressing about food and rent rather than thinking about their long term benefits. We also ask them what their needs are. And on the lowest list is clothing.

So one of the things that we've done is help them to understand that they are entitled to dream more and to think bigger. So that's why I like the name of calsor. And we are very excited to see what is the change and transformation is going to be with our clients.

Just over the last year we've been working with them. We see that now they have some hope and now they are beginning to become self sufficient and by doing this intervention at this stage in their lives, we're preventing further system involvement and we're allowing them to stabilize and see that there is a path forward.

And so I know you will also hear more about that from my partner here.

Thank you. All right, Good afternoon Chair and thank you Senator Cortese for allowing me to speak on your Bill. My name is DJ Anthony-Gaffield and I stand here today as someone who has personally experienced the challenges of being homeless youth. My story is not unique, but it is also not straightforward.

But I do believe it is important to share to show the very real impact that guaranteed income could have had on my life in the lives of many youth. As a homeless youth, I faced an overwhelming amount of instability. Lack of housing, lack of access to basic needs, and the constant worry about my future.

Every day was a battle not just for survival, but for any shred of hope. The weight of uncertainty and survival often overshadowed my ability to focus on my education, career goals and my mental health. I know firsthand how easy it is to become invisible when you're on the margins of society fighting just to stay afloat.

I entered the workforce working in kitchens and warehouses throughout after my time after high school. One day a co worker mentioned college and I said that I would be great for it and said it would be a good path for me.

Since that moment, I've gone on to pursue that at Pasadena City College and from there transferred to Aziza Pacific University to pursue my college goals. All it took was one moment of support and belief in my future.

Had a guaranteed income been available to me in the months after high school, I would have had the foundation needed to stabilize my life. A guaranteed of income would have given me the security to find safe housing, access the resources, the ability to focus on building a future rather than just surviving.

It would have offered me the peace of mind to pursue my education, seek out mental health support and eventually contribute meaningful to society. Guaranteed income for high school graduates launched into adulthood is not just a financial support system, it's a lifeline.

It is a recognition that youth experiencing homelessness are not failures, but we are resilient individuals who deserve a choice to thrive, a chance to thrive.

It is the difference between pursuing work for the sake of an income and an education, in pursuit of passions and goals, SB33 has the power to provide that opportunity, helping many young people get back on their feet, reach their potential and break the cycle of poverty that often keeps them trapped.

I urge you today, honorable Committee, to support SB33, not just for me, but for every homeless youth who needs a chance to build a brighter future. Thank you.

Thank you so very much for your testimony. We'll ask any Members of the public wishing to express support for the bill to please approach the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation position only. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Dan Seaman, on behalf of End Poverty in California, appreciate the author for bringing this forward and urge your aye vote. Proud co sponsor.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District and Oakland Unified School District. In support.

Katherine Charles. And behold of Housing California. In support.

Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth. In support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. In support.

Elle Grant on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. In support.

Tessa D'Arcangelo ampersand on behalf of Smart Justice California and Courage Campaign. In support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senator Rosanna. Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda. In support.

Medicasio Garcia on behalf of No Good Hungary. In support.

Becky Silva from the California Association of Food Banks. In support.

Andrew Shane Grace, End Child Poverty California. And on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. In support.

Josh Gauger on behalf of The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the County Welfare Directors Association. In support.

Good afternoon. Katrina Linden on behalf of Young Invincibles. Proud to be a co sponsor on this bill and proud support. Thank you.

Hi. Dr. Dante Early President and CEO of United Way California Capital Region. Proud to support as well as proud to be a co sponsor.

Adriel Okoro on behalf of the Economic Security Project. In support.

Jeff Tardegia as an advocate in dogfight and is the sole survivor in support.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other Members of the public in support of the bill? Okay. If not, we'll move to. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay, I don't see any. So we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it's interesting. I supported the bill in education. I'm going to continue to support the bill today.

But I do, I think it's important to note and have on record address some of the concerns that would be had by folks in which they would probably think or state that having this type of support with universal basic income would incentivize a work ethic or having the drive to actually work in addition to just to receiving this particular aid.

How would you address those concerns, Senator Cortese, as to, you know, providing universal income and disentivizing a work ethic or a willingness to actually work for themselves?

Thank you. It's a great question and it's probably, you know, one of the only real concerns that comes up, I think, with guaranteed income legislation in General, local or, you know, now on a statewide basis. But I think the answer is threefold. One, we have learned a lot the last couple of years about actual experience.

And even though most guaranteed income programs don't require exit interviews or other conditions, they've typically been around populations like Foster and others who are sort of case management dependent. So their experiences are being reported in, you know, to our cities and counties.

We found out with Stockton, for example, that their actual experience was that upon exit interviews from the programs, people talked about how the program freed them up to do more job hunting and secure a job.

We heard with our Foster program in Santa Clara County, students over at San Jose State who experienced the program, who said if it wasn't for the program, they would not have been able to stay in school or stay in their housing. Secondly, it's not enough money yet to really free somebody up to stop working.

And we're talking about, you know, this program is proposed at $1,000 a month. We've seen guaranteed income programs as, you know, hover between 500 and 1000. Of course, not just in Silicon Valley and most of California. That's not enough money to, to retire at the age of 22. It's, you know, it just isn't.

And, but it is enough money to create a tipping point. If you, if you need this and you can work and maybe have some student financial aid coming at some point, you know, that's going to be enough to keep you afloat. And then lastly, this is just a bridge program.

So the best case scenario for somebody is the few months between graduation of high school and enrollment in school. By design is the length of the program. We kept the program at a fixed number of months, so it can't extend.

Somebody can't come along in this program and say, geez, I did my best to enroll in school or to get financial aid at school and it fell through. Can I extend? There's no extension in this program. So there's really a lot of checks and balances.

Kind of built in on the natural to keep people from, you know, becoming overly dependent on a program like this.

I don't, you know, someday I think there'll be a bill, I believe, that really tries to take out General assistance and many other support programs that might be a lot more money and we'll have to have that debate that you're raising all over again.

But I think this bill is self inoculated from anything like that happening just because of its duration.

And I think that's important to note and have that for the record, because I mean, there's going to be, you know, a lot of concerns and I think for a lot of programs that the state provides, as far as aid goes, the number one concern is having people make it a lifestyle, just becoming dependent on it and not creating that incentivized.

But and the reason I'm supportive, and I've been supportive of your previous work with our foster youth is because I do believe that it's a vulnerable population right there and it is a very limited scope. Just like your high school foster student bill that you carried a year ago, two years ago, it was very, very limited.

And when I think about the vulnerabilities that many of our youth have, and if they do not have some level of support, especially if they don't have a family unit or a social unit that can come and support them, then we end up with unintended behavior that may not be conducive to keeping them on the right track and in order to stay in school or basically stay in school.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting the bill today. And I will continue to support the bill in there, even though that, you know, especially many, many folks would be concerned on it. But those are my, those are my, that's my rationale as to why I will be supportive of the measure moving forward.

So thank you for bringing that forward, Sen. Cortese.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you so much, Senator Cortese, for your ongoing leadership on this issue. Just note that this bill previously passed this Committee and I think this is critical to provide economic security and a safety net for youth who are experiencing homelessness in California.

Somebody who's had lived experience of homelessness in my own life, even though my parents worked, I know that many people are literally one paycheck away from being on the streets. And these are young people that are enrolled in school, are working, but need some additional resources.

And $1,000 is probably not enough, but it will go a long way to make sure that People have enough money to pay utilities or pay for groceries. Just the rising cost of living in the state.

I think this is absolutely critical and very happy to recommend an aye on your bill and turn it back over to you to close.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogue. And thank you, Chair Arreguin. Thank you to your Committee staff for the work, you know, done on the analysis and coming to a support position on the bill. I just want to thank the witnesses who were here.

It's similar to my, my opening comment about having job titles now around guaranteed income. It's just, it's heartwarming for me after a few years working in this space to see people coming forward to testify.

And I just wanted to thank them for taking the time out of their day to be here, as well as our lead witnesses in opening up your personal life to a Committee like this. It's very helpful. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. So we'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. But thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, witnesses, for coming today and for your work. And we will move now to our next file item, which is file item 2, Senate Bill 99 by Senator Blakespear. And Good afternoon, Senator.

Good afternoon, Chair.

And if there are any witnesses in support, please come forward. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to you, Senator Blakespear to present.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. I am pleased to present SB99, which is sponsored by the US Department of Defense, and I gladly accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you for working with us. SB99 would allow family child care providers who are already Certified by the U.S.

Department of Defense to forego a duplicative state license, provided that they care only for military families, follow California's anti-discrimination laws and meet the health and safety requirements for licensed child care providers. State licensing requirements are often duplicative of those from DoD certification.

For example, DoD certification and California licensure both require homes to be inspected before child care services can begin. While it takes between 2 and 4 weeks for the military to complete the initial fire inspection, it can take the California Department of Fire protection up to three months to maintain DoD certification.

Family child care centers are inspected monthly, while state licensed family child care centers are inspected every three years. Further, 87% of DoD certified providers are military spouses and frequently have operated in multiple states. Collecting the work history information required for state licensure adds additional time.

With DoD certification, that information follows the provider across states, meaning providers can reopen much faster after moving. California's licensure requirements are often seen as too burdensome for DoD certified FCC providers. This extra burden discourages some from operating in California, knowing that they will likely be relocated out of the state in a few short years.

The children they would otherwise care for are then forced into civilian child care options, which further exacerbates our child care shortage statewide and makes wait times longer for everyone. Several states already accept DoD certification in lieu of state licensing, and California law already exempts several types of child care from state licensure.

SB99 would add DoD certified FCC providers as exempt from state licensure provided that they only care for military children and that the DoD and the California Department of Social Services have agreed to a policy governing the exemption.

While these providers would not be required to hold a state license, they would still be required to follow state health and safety requirements.

Cdss would retain the right to inspect these exempt facilities even without notice or reason, and the policy will include procedures for enforcement, reporting and corrective actions against DoD certified FCC providers without sacrificing quality or safety.

SB 99 will ensure that FCC providers who are already certified by the Department of Defense and exclusively serve military children can offer critically needed child care services in California without the need for or the delay in getting the duplicative license. With me today I have Veronica Badillo on behalf of the Department of the Navy. Thank you.

Hi, Good afternoon. Welcome.

Hi, good afternoon everyone. I think this is on, my name is Veronica Badillo. I represent Navy Region Southwest here on behalf of the Department of Defense Liaison Office and the Active Military Services in California in support of SB99.

As the Senator mentioned, SB99 would allow family child care providers who are already certified by DoD to operate without a state license provided that they care only for military families and follow California's health and safety requirements for licensed FCCs.

Taking care of service Members and their families remains a top priority of the Department of Defense and is at the center of the National Defense Strategy. The Department established the Family Child Care Program to expand child care availability and to assist in meeting the diverse needs of military families and the Child and Youth Program.

Personnel conducting these program inspections are considered mission essential. The FCC program ensures family child care homes meet top quality and safety standards. The certification process is widely recognized as one of the most stringent in the country.

Standards set by the DoD and the military services ensure strict oversight of service providers, which include background checks, monthly inspections, and unannounced visits. Military families nationwide face shortages of childcare providers in the San Diego Metro Area alone, There are approximately 1,200 children currently on waitlist for on base child development centers.

One way to address the shortage is by certifying more FCC providers. SB99 would allow FCC providers to work immediately after being certified, inspected and approved by a new installation commander in order to provide care to the children of military families.

Additionally, for the past two years, the department has partnered with First 5 San Diego to pilot a program that expands child care services for military families through the military child care in your neighborhood plus subsidy. These civilian community providers are eligible to participate in this program and are not included in the FCC DoD exemptions.

A key challenge to expanding this program statewide is the difference in inspection inspection requirements. As the Senator mentioned, state law mandates inspections every three years while the DoD program requires them annually.

SB99 would streamline this process, making it easier for civilian providers to meet the necessary criteria, thereby increasing the number of child care options available for military families and supporting the financial stability of local providers. We are grateful for the significant efforts California has made to support our service Members and their families.

We appreciate the opportunity to support the policy reflected in SB 99. I would especially like to thank Senator Blakespear for leading this effort. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Is there anyone else here in support of SB99? Can please come forward? State your name, affiliation and position.

Jeff Tartageia, an advocate and I was born at Mather Air Force Base.

And you're in support, I presume? Yes. Thank you. Are there any other Members of the public wishing to express support for Senate Bill 99? Please come forward to the microphone. Okay. See no additional witnesses. Will now take any witnesses in opposition to SB99. Are there any witnesses in opposition to SB99? And I do not see any.

So it's now in order for the Committee to deliberate on the bill. Excuse me.

Are you in opposition?

On behalf of CCPU, we submitted a letter with concerns. So just wanted to comment that, you know, we appreciate the Committee and the chair and the author for addressing some of those concerns and the proposed amendments, and we look forward to seeing them in print and we'll continue to work with the author to address the rest of our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public in opposition to Senate Bill 99 who wish to testify? Okay. Now it's in order for the Committee to deliberate on the bill, entertain any questions or comments. So I want to thank Senator Blake for bringing this forward and working with the Committee.

And I will be recommending an eye on this bill as amended. Senator Chobo, do you have any questions or comments?

Grateful for the bill and look forward to supporting it when the time comes. Thank you.

I'll trip back over to Senator Blakespear for to close.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Thank you so very much. Thank you for joining us today. Once again, we'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum and with that we will transition to our next Bill. So file item three is on consent.

So move to file item four, Senate Bill 435 by Senator Dr. Wahab. Good afternoon and you may present your bill.

Thank you. Chair, colleagues and Members of the public, I'd like to thank Committee staff for their engagement with my office as well as the sponsors of this bill.

I'm here to present SB435, which requires residential care facilities for the elderly to have alternative sources of power capable of supporting residents health and safety for 72 hours during a power outage. Skilled nursing facilities are required to maintain backup power for 96 hours.

By contrast, seniors and disabled individuals who reside in RCFEs remain unprotected from power outages, disasters and rolling blackouts. RCFEs residents, who are often frail or have chronic illnesses such as dementia, are not able to protect themselves without a continuous power supply and rely on equipment and systems powered by electricity.

In 2024 investor owned utilities performed 34 public safety power PSP shutoffs. A single PSP shutoff event can impact tens of thousands of customers. Approximately 200,000 older adults and persons with disabilities live in RCFEs throughout California. One third of our senior care facilities are in high risk fire zones.

Many more are located in high heat zones, which puts them at risk of power blackouts. Seniors are particularly vulnerable during extreme heat events. Without mandated emergency power, residents face unnecessary and preventable risks such as the loss of ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, oxygen machines, hearing aid chargers and other medical devices.

At this time, I would like to introduce my two witnesses. Ann Beldin, Professor of Journalism, Santa Rosa Junior College and the co author of Abandonment, Heroism and Outrage in Wine Country's Deadliest Firestorm. And Ramon Castellblanch, Professor Emeritus, Public Health, San Francisco State University.

And thank you for joining us this afternoon. You have two minutes to address the Committee and turn the floor over to you.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. During the 2017 Tubbs Fire, the first threat to the residents of Villa Capri, a Santa Rosa rcfe, was not the fire itself. It was the loss of power of Villa Capri's 62 residents, 47 or 75% were considered non ambulatory, meaning they required wheelchairs or walkers, and two were bedridden without power.

The memory care unit's electronic doors unlocked and frantic caregivers had to watch exits to keep the 25 residents with dementia from wandering and without power.

The very fit Len Colwick, a 92 year old World War II vet, couldn't see the stairs in front of him while trying to evacuate and ended up rolling down them, feeling his kneecap rip apart on the way. Too old to have surgery, Len wore a knee brace and needed a walker and wheelchair for life.

That same night, a vibrant 87 year old Louise Johnson, a longtime asthmatic, survived, struggled to breathe inside the smoky building without air filtration. She died two weeks later of respiratory failure. During the recent Los Angeles fires, 100-year-old Jean Poole couldn't charge her hearing aids during the power outage.

When the Eaton fire approached, she didn't hear the evacuation alert and was left behind. And she wasn't the only one. Backup power is now required for skilled nursing facilities. And it's just as vital for RCFEs, whether for a safe evacuation or to shelter in place.

They need lighting to prevent falls, power for medical devices like oxygen, heat in winter, AC in summer, communication tools like landlines, and refrigeration for medicine. You'll hear from the opposition that the Bill costs too much money for RCFES to implement. But 90% are run for profit, which as the industry itself reports a median profit margin of 20%.

And this Bill only affects larger facilities, most likely corporate chains with 16 beds or more. Nationwide, assisted living is a $76 billion industry. SB435 will save lives. We wrote inflamed as a warning for what could go wrong in a disaster and to prevent it from happening again.

But it has happened again in Maui, in Paradise and now in Los Angeles. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so very much, sir. I'll turn the floor over to you.

Ramon Costeblanc, co Chair of the California Alliance for Retired Americans Legislative Committee. Climate change is increasing the risks of wildfires and heat waves and other kinds of disasters in California, which can lead to power outages in facilities like assisted living facilities the size of California's 85 year old and older population.

Those most likely to need to live in assisted living will quadruple between 2020 and 2060. Along with that, as I mentioned, there is an increasing risk of wildfires due to climate change. Both trends show an increasing urgency for legislation to protect assisted living residents from power outages.

Many other states see these vulnerable populations as comparable to the populations of skilled nursing facilities and have identical requirements for power backup in their assisted living facilities along with the SNFs. So this state needs that kind of comparable alignment as well.

Research from Yale University has shown that vulnerable populations in such places as skilled nursing facilities need backup power. They have found that where there is this kind of backup, there is a higher rate of survival, a higher rate of people getting through these sorts of crises, training and planning and those kinds of measures.

That's all well and good. However, that does not substitute for power backup that in and of itself will save lives. The implementation of AB 2511, California's 2022 Bill requiring skilled nursing facilities to have backup power has many lessons for providing backup power for residents, frail residents of facilities here in California.

And we can build on those lessons from AB 2511. So I urge this Committee to vote aye for this vital piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Okay, we'll take any Members of the public in support of SB435. If you can please approach the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position for the record.

David Feinberg representing AARP. We stand in support of the bill. Thank you.

Daisy Orem representing the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Paul Gullickson from Santa Rosa. Longtime journalist, educator at Sonoma State University, and co author of Inflamed with Ann Beldin. And I stand in support. Thank you, sir.

Noel Felice Smith. I'm a retired nurse and I stand in support. I'm from the California Alliance for Retired Americans and live in Roseville.

Thank you.

Jeff Tardegia, an advocate and member of Sacramento and CARA in support of this bill.

Thank you, sir.

Kathy Fatinos, Member of California Alliance for Retired Americans, in support of this bill.

Arlene Harrison, CARA in support.

CT Webber, one of the Vice Presidents of CARA, in support.

Randy Hicks, California's Disability Rights and CARA in support.

Hi, my name is Beth Steffey. I'm here in honor of my mom, who was greatly hurt by lack of power at her assisted living facility when the fire came through. Respectfully asking for your support. Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association. In support.

Thank you very much. There any other Members of the public in support of SB435? Okay. We'll now take any witnesses in opposition to SB435.

And good afternoon. If you can please state your name and affiliation, and you'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Amber King with LeadingAge California, representing nonprofit providers of care services and housing for older adults, including RCFEs and skilled nursing facilities. So here to talk about our opposition to this bill. Unfortunately, we are respectfully opposed to this bill, and we do have significant concerns about the cost burden of this bill.

And ultimately we believe that those cost pressures will lead to the closure of RCFEs and the dampering of new RCFEs being opened in the state. This is particularly troubling as the state is grappling with how to care for older adults that is rapidly growing. And in addition, the cost in most cases will be borne by the residents of the RCFEs, which is particularly troubling as we're looking at the affordability of assisted living for those much needed services.

In large urban areas, we are concerned with the feasibility of even installing some of these large scale generators, and we have a few of our providers are in San Francisco, and we have a strong concern about the ability for them to put these into place. The requirements in the bill are modeled after the skilled nursing facility requirements.

In most cases, those skilled nursing facilities have had to install new generators, which is costing about $2 billion statewide. And that is for about 1,100 skilled nursing facilities in the state. For some of our members, that cost is between $500,000 and $2.5 million. And currently there is less than 1% of skilled nursing facilities that are in compliance.

And we believe that looking at emergency preparedness and response, we have been a long time champion of a implementation of a statewide long term care emergency response system to help those communities quickly, safely, and efficiently evacuate their residents. And we believe that that could be a strong solution for the, for the need for this bill.

LeadingAge California is committed to increasing access to long term care services and supports throughout the state, including RCFE. We are strongly concerned that this will put a damper on the progress that we have been made that we've been making to date. And with that, unfortunately, here in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Are there any members of the public who are in opposition to SB 435 who wish to make a comment? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you to our witnesses. If there are any questions, we'll direct them to the appropriate person. And it's now in order for the Committee to discuss the bill. There any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I guess it's just you and me, so I might as well just take it.

Go ahead.

I'm very, very conflicted with this bill because, on principle, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with this particular need that we have in our care facilities, especially for seniors, especially coming from a district that currently represents Grand Terrace.

And with the recent power shutoffs, we actually had not necessarily this particular facility, but 55 plus communities in which literally we had seen seniors who are in multistory buildings that did not have electricity and therefore the elevators were not working. So many of our seniors were not able to actually, you know, use the elevators to leave the building. Especially when you're not very, your knees are not working or you're, you know, not able to walk quite well. That is, that posed quite a challenge.

We had individuals and stories of someone whose bed was electric, and it was posted up and they couldn't bring it back down. So, I mean, I personally have heard of scenarios where my seniors have actually been impacted by these power shutoffs. So the need is there. The concern I have is the cost and why the cost.

The state is known for passing many unfunded mandates, and especially the impact that it has on businesses in the State of California and the cost of doing business in California. Which many people think, oh, well, it's just the business, it's a business, let them absorb the cost. The problem is that businesses never absorb the cost.

The cost always goes down to the consumer, in this case, the residents. And it's a challenge because on one end we were looking at the safety of the residents and on the other side we're looking at the ability to ensure, depending on what the cost is. And that's, I have a question on that, if somebody can answer. But it's my understanding that these generators can be incredibly costly per unit.

And so when I think about, you know, the state coming in and mandating that these facilities, you know, purchase these generators, which can cost, you know, hundreds of thousands depending on the size, depending on the unit, on those. Which, by the way, I am grateful that this only applies to 16 beds and over, which means our small mom and pop facilities will not be impacted by this.

However, the cost of these, of these generators are incredibly expensive. And I think, for the record, it's important to note, you know, what the average cost of each unit would be and how many units would be needed for each additional or for each, how many beds. So for how many beds do you have, how big of a facility, how many, how big of a unit, how much that cost will be to that unit. Because that will, in my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it goes down to the cost of those services.

So we don't have, you know, we have businesses are fleeing our state because they can't, they literally cannot survive financially. Just doesn't make sense to stay here. And I'm conflicted because we have such a dire need, especially as our senior population is expanding exponentially in our state. So we need these facilities to be able to stay in here. So I'm grappling in my mind as to how do we move forward in the best manner.

And the only thing I can think of is, well, perhaps if the state is going to mandate that our facilities do that and it's going to bear an extremely high cost, which by the way, our residents are going to be paying for it, then maybe perhaps a budget, you know, a grant process that the state should offer in order to facilitate these, the purchase of these, of these units in order to be able to meet the need and not impact the consumers.

Which by the way, anything that the state pays in any grant that we have is still taxpayer paid. We're still paying for all of that. So we are the highest tax state, we pay a lot in taxes, and this is just one more unit, one more prioritization that we have to, you know, consider or not.

So I'm literally conflicted on this bill because we do have a need. But the cost that, you know, that's going to be borne by the residents because ultimately they're the ones who are going to pay. I'm afraid that if, if it's not passed on or if it's too expensive, then we're going to lose those bed, that bed capacity for our residents in California. So I don't know if you folks have any way to dissuade me because literally I'm truly, truly conflicted.

Who would you like to direct that question to? The author or? Yes.

Thank you. So the generators that would be potentially utilized for, you know, a facility that has, again, roughly about, you know, 100 plus patients. Right. Which is not a small facility, it is a large corporate chain, typically. Is it depends on which type of generator you would want. It could range anywhere from $20,000. And a quick Google search kind of shows this. Right.

It could also have all the bells and whistles and be significantly more expensive. Right. To couple hundred thousand. So I really want to gauge, again, it depends on the facility, number one. The other fact of the matter is the fact that we also know that these types of facilities, safety and emergency preparedness should be seen as a standard cost of doing business. Right. You know, we have an elderly care facility in our district as well. When power outages just happened. Not even a wildfire, not even anything.

Just a tower went down, a car accident, you know, shut down the power. There are people that die. That's the end all be all, right. We are talking about small things like a hearing aid or something like that. But the risk is people can die. Right. I also want to highlight the fact that there are twice the number of skilled, I mean these assisted facilities nationwide are twice the number of skilled nursing homes. Right. And at the same time, the average resident is about 86 years old.

We are not talking about fully mobile individuals, people that can, you know, wing it if something happens. Right. We need 24/7 power for them. And we're not even asking for that. We're asking for about 90 plus hours. Right. So about three plus days. I also want to highlight the fact that, you know, I understand your concerns about affordability. I have those same concerns. That's why, you know, on some of the bills that we're looking at today, I'm like, it doesn't guarantee affordability. Right.

But the reality is that the cost of this particular type of generator, which, you know, we are trying to ensure that they purchase. The cost divided over 100 plus people. Not only that, but the state also reimburses these facilities. Right. Significantly, they make money. They make money, and it is growing business. It's a billion dollar plus industry. Right.

Billions, in fact. Right. They can afford a generator. The generator is the least of their concerns. Right. And so when you're making billions of dollars and several hundred dollars per day per patient, I think that they can afford a generator. And it's a one time purchase, it lasts for many, many years.

They just have to make sure that they have the safety equipment that we're asking for. So this meets with some of the other compliance that we have for other types of facilities. It is completely doable. It is for the large chain, it's not for the small mom and pop. And we are trying to make sure that, again, it is for the residents and their safety.

Mr. Chair, if I may. So 16 beds I don't think equals 100 patients. And this bill impacts 16 beds.

16 beds plus. Right. And I believe...

But you're quoting 100 patients. That would be, what, 100 beds, I'm assuming?

For which part?

So you just stated that, you know, these are big facilities that actually are corporations. They make a lot of money. And you quoted 100 beds. But this bill impacts facilities 16 up.

So smaller facility would be 6 beds or less. Right. That's the stat. Sorry, go ahead. 16 or less.

So yes, so 16. And I don't know, I don't think 16 bed is a huge corporation, and I don't know what they're...

However, they're getting reimbursed per day several hundred dollars.

Okay, so the other question I have for you, how does this work with California and their limit on use for generators? Is this something that the state would have to look at as far as excluding or doing a carve out for generators for these type of facilities?

No, because even at the county level... So for example, I'm sure your county also owns a hospital or two. Right. Under their purview. Counties, for example, also, you know, have to manage the local jails. Right. All of these particular issues, whether we're talking about hospitals or jails or, again, some of these senior living facilities, they require a 24/7 power generator. Right. It is their option when electricity goes out and it's a safety standard. Right. So this would comply with exactly those safety standards that we apply for, again, for health and safety.

So it would align it. Okay. So I want, if the Chair wouldn't mind, I would love to hear a little bit of feedback as far as our response, if they have any, from the opposition with regards to my concerns as far as...

Briefly, if possible.

Sure, yeah. As I already mentioned, for some of our skilled nursing facilities, and most of our skilled nursing facilities are 60 beds or less, that's $500,000 up to $1-2.5 million. So we're not talking small amounts of money. And then I would just also like to note that RCFEs are typically not state funded. They're either private pay or they're typically private pay.

For certain portions. There is, Medicare does provide some support, number one. There is a reimbursement as well. And if my witnesses would like to add on to that, just for clarity.

Well, Senator, the question was directed to the opposition. I will, when I have the floor, ask the gentleman to respond. So. But you're asking the opposition to respond, so you've responded. Do you have any more questions? I have a question I want to direct, so I want to make sure that you have the opportunity to finish your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my final question would probably be has there been any studies or evaluations of what implementing this. Because I completely agree with the need. But what the impact would be on our facilities be able to stay open moving forward with, for our seniors in our state. I mean, because that's the other thing that we really have to consider besides the cost is the ability to make sure that they stay open moving forward. Do we have any idea of the impact of what this would cause?

As far as I know, there hasn't been a study done. The only thing we can look at is skilled nursing facilities. Some of our nonprofit skilled nursing facilities have made the unfortunate decision to sell or close their skilled nursing facilities, and what pushed them over the edge was the job generator bill from a few years ago. So. But I don't have any stats from RCFEs. Sorry.

So the data would have actually been very helpful to see, you know, what the impact had on those facilities on the ability to stay open versus, you know, continuing on, you know, and moving forward if it didn't impact. I think... So I'm not sure if there is data that would cover that or not, but I think it would be interesting. I think I'm going to stay off this time. Is there another Committee that's seeing this bill? Are we seeing it somewhere else, Mr. Chair?

It goes to Appropriations next if it passes out today. So this is the last policy committee that's going to review it before Appropriations, and I'm recommending an aye on this bill.

Are you?

Yes.

Okay. All righty. Thank you.

I have the floor now. Just want to summarize the author amendments, which are, which are described in page 12 and 13 of the Committee analysis. One, to extend the date for implementation by an additional year to January 1, 2028. So that will give those facilities additional time to comply, albeit it'd be great if they can comply sooner given the very significant safety risks that patients and residents may experience if they're not able to access power.

And also to amend the definition of alternative source of power to also say that facilities and renewable energy micro grids could be a means to achieve the alternative source of power that's required by this bill. And just say, you know, I was Mayor of Berkeley during the power safety shut offs when those were first implemented.

And we had, you know, seniors and people who are medically frail who lost power. And we had to work very quickly to, with our fire department and with, you know, and other social service agencies to provide support for those people.

We know that wildfire risk and other emergencies are a new reality in California given the impacts of climate change. I think this is reasonable. It's making sure that we're complying with the other standards that we set for other types of facilities. And I think it's an important step to ensure safety for our seniors and those that are living in these facilities in California. So I thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I'll turn it over you to close.

So I would just like the opportunity for you guys to make your final comment about some of the questions you guys heard.

Yes. I wanted to say that other states, including Florida, have already done this. Most emergencies have senior residents sheltering in place, not evacuating. And stronger evacuation procedures won't help in heat waves and freezes when residents are sheltering in place. And to keep in mind that there are, this is a $76 billion industry, and they're building new facilities in California all over the place because it's so profitable.

Sure. I'll just add to that that there are alternatives to energy that are being developed right now. We are working with David Bliss, who was the Chair of the HCAI Energy Management Technology Committee on new technologies, and we are looking forward to bringing those forward to bring down the costs.

Thank you so very much.

Yes. So at the end of the day, you know, we can debate the cost of what this actually means, but I really want to highlight these are people's lives. These are people's grandmothers, grandfathers, cousins, sisters, brothers, and you can't put a price on that.

And I would push back on the fact that it costs $1.0 million for a generator. It does not. Right. And you can do a quick Google search. It depends on the size. And again, even for 120 beds, let's say if we did that, it's significantly lower than $1.0 million. Significantly. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote because you cannot put a price tag on people's safety, especially if we can prevent it.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. Once again, we'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. And the Chair is recommending an aye on Senate Bill 435 with the amendments that I had read into the record, extending the implementation date by additional year and then the definition of alternative source of power.

So with that, we'll move on to our next bill presentation, and that will move to file item six, file item seven rather. Six is on consent. Seven is Senate Bill 802 by Senator Ashby. And good afternoon. Thank you for waiting patiently. I'll turn the floor over you to present your bill.

Thank you so much. Thanks for having me here this evening. Oh my gosh. It's almost 5:00. What is happening? This is the most Monday of Mondays of all Mondays. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present SB802.

This is the Women's Housing Priority Act, which requires the state to consider federal survivors of violence and trafficking when allocating future shelter and housing assistance funds. Domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking disproportionately impact women. I know. We all know that. Yet the shelters serving these survivors are often overlooked in state funding decisions.

Most shelters in California are in fact co-ed with their population being over 90% male. For women who are escaping violence or women with children or any other women that come from a vulnerable or unsafe situation, those co ed shelters are not a realistic solution.

One in five women in California who become homeless do so to escape an abusive partner. More than 40% continue to experience violence after becoming homeless, often in CO shelters while unsheltered. Compounding the trauma, women are often forced to choose between an unsafe shelter or the streets. Neither offer the safety or support needed to move forward.

SB802 closes a critical gap in how we serve survivors of abuse through our homeless response system. And as a personal note, while on the Sacramento City Council, I was actually surprised because of state laws how difficult it was to open a shelter that was specifically targeted at serving women and children.

But I will tell you, it had 119 beds. It filled up immediately. Those women were already homeless. They had just found safe places to hunker down, usually in their cars or somebody's garage or some other pretty safe and unstable environment. This Bill asks that the state Legislature find priorities for people who are in these situations.

And with me today to testify is Chelsea Leonard, the Chief Development officer for San Francisco Safe House, which is one of the sponsors of the Bill, and my friend Joyce Bilyeu, who's the Deputy Director for the Sacramento Regional Family justice center, which is the coordinating hub for all domestic violence assistance in all of the greater Sacramento County.

We are respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator, and good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. I'll turn over to you to begin and you'll have two minutes. And thank you for joining us this afternoon.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Chelsea Leonard and I'm speaking on behalf of San Francisco Safe House, where we've been providing housing and wraparound services to unhoused survivors of sexual violence, trafficking and exploitation for more than 25 years.

We strongly support SB802 because this is not just a funding decision, but a values decision. It signals that California recognizes the unique needs of women and other survivors who are not safe in traditional shelter systems.

Right now, women face an impossible sleep outside or enter environments that feel unsafe co ed shelters where their trauma is often retriggered, where incidents of physical and sexual assault are regularly reported, and where systems tend to overlook their specific needs.

Although women make up nearly half of California's unhoused population, over 85% of housing options are in co-ed settings and as the Senator mentioned, 90% of those residents are male. These spaces are not designed with women in mind.

In San Francisco alone, seven women focused housing and service programs have shut down or gone co-ed in the past 10 years. And that is not from lack of need, but is from because of lack of investment. SB802 will change that.

It ensures that future state housing investments include survivors those fleeing violence, exploitation and trauma, women who are ready to heal if given a space to do so safely. We saw overwhelming support for these values in San Francisco where voters passed Proposition A last year, allocating resources for gender specific housing and services.

Our communities understand that public safety, health and dignity are tied to how we support our most vulnerable neighbors. When women are safe and supported, our communities thrive at safe house. We've seen the transformation that happens when women are housed in spaces built specifically for them, with care, with healing and with a safe path forward.

That's what SB802 makes possible not just in San Francisco, but across the state. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, Good afternoon Chair and Committee My name is Joyce Bilyeu and I'm proud to serve as the Deputy Director of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center. And even prouder to stand before you as a survivor of domestic violence and strong support of Senate Bill 802.

40% of the population of survivors that come through the doors of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center report homelessness as a result of abuse. For over 40 years, I have worked professionally alongside of survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, elder and child abuse. And after all these years, I know one thing for certain.

Without safety there is no healing. And without healing, there is no future. SB802 meets a need we can no longer ignore. Women who have survived violence deserve more than a bed for the night. They deserve a place where they can breathe freely, raise their children safely and rebuild without fear.

Traditional shelters, while life saving, are often not enough co-ed spaces, can re-traumatize survivors and force impossible choices between the streets and spaces for fear. And think about the staff in those co ed shelters. They're not trained to work with survivors. Senate Bill 802 changes that.

It invests in women centered trauma, informed housing, real homes where survivors can reclaim their lives with dignity and hope. I have seen it firsthand. Women ready to take their first steps toward freedom, but with nowhere to go. Mothers trying to protect their children after escaping violence only to face homelessness.

Survivors needing just one thing, a safe door they can close and lock behind them. It's not just a key. It's safety. It's hope. It's a new beginning. SB802 is not just policy. It's an act of justice and compassion. Today you all have the chance to open the door for thousands of women. Please support Senate Bill 802.

Let's show survivors they are seen, they are heard, and they're not alone. And thank you, Senator Ashby, for authoring this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. I will now take any other members of the public who are in support of Senate Bill 802. You can please come forward and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good afternoon. Cristin Fiorelli, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center in support support of the bill.

David Cropp with the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center in support as well. Thank you.

Alicia Dean with Sacramento Area Congregations Together, in support of the bill.

Randy Hicks with Californians with Disability Rights and strong support. Thank you so very much.

Are there any other Members of the public in support of Senate Bill 802?

Mr. Chair, do I have your permission to name the organizations that were unable to attend that are in support?

Absolutely.

Great. We have Black Women, Revolt Against Domestic Violence, center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Community Forward San Francisco, Downtown Los Angeles Women's Center, Glide, La Casa De Las Madras, Mary Elizabeth Inn, the National Council of Jewish Women of San Francisco, San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, San Francisco Safe House and the Women's Building.

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other Members of the public in support of SB802. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing None. Are there any Members of public who wish to Express opposition to SB802? I didn't see any opposition on file. Rightfully so. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

Just say that I really appreciate you bringing this forward, Senator Ashby. I think our state is woefully behind in expanding access to shelter and permanent supportive housing for families for victims of domestic violence for women.

And as you had noted, oftentimes, you know, congregate or even non congregate shelter is not necessarily designed to provide a safe environment for kids or for women or victims of domestic violence or sexual violence.

And I think that this is absolutely critical to give priority as the state is allocating money for homeless services, that we are prioritizing these critical populations. So I really, really appreciate you bringing this forward, and I will. I recommend an eye on this Bill. And Senator Trobeau, do you have any questions or comments?

I echo your comments.

Thank you. Well, turn it back over to you to close on the bill.

Yeah, I appreciate it very much. And I know actually for both of you members, I know this is personal, so I grateful to have your support, both of you, and hope to have the support of your our colleagues when they arrive to Committee.

I guess what I would say about this, and I'll be very brief, is that I don't think it's intentional that California left women and kids behind in this space. But it's incumbent upon us as lawmakers to notice when an unintended consequence occurs, and it has occurred in mass here. And we have to right the ship.

There is no person who live who wouldn't say, let's prioritize women and children who are experiencing homelessness as a result of domestic violence. There's no one who wouldn't agree with us. But right now, our rules don't allow us to do that.

And the women's shelters are closing and they're being forced through some of our other policy decisions, like coordinated entry, to take inappropriate placements, which then makes things very unsafe for some of these individuals. And I'll end with this note.

My friend Joyce always says this thing, and I think it's so powerful that I'm going to repeat it, especially knowing that she's a survivor. She says trauma is about our past, but hope, that's our future.

And so we have an opportunity right now, today to do something to create some hope for some people who've dealt with a lot of trauma. We can fix their future. They need resources, they need help. They need wraparound service models in their communities that are tailored to the specific needs, and they will succeed.

I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you so much for joining us today and the incredible important work that you do. Okay, so as we.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. As we do not have a quorum yet and I think Senate Prez is next to present. Okay. Senator Becker's on his way. When he comes, we can establish a quorum. So we will, I guess, sit in recess until he comes. Thank you.

And the remaining items we have are file item 8, SB411 by Senator Perez and SB606 by Senator Becker, and then the consent calendar and then the other bills, which we have not made a motion on yet. So we'll stand in recess until we can establish a quorum. Thank.

Right, yeah, but you want to just come up here so we can just take care of some of the other stuff and just get some of these motions on the floor, because then you got to go back to energy, so. Okay, we do have a quorum. I'd like to ask the Committee assistant to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, before we go to the Bill presentation on your bills, the consent Calendar consisted of SB422, Grayson, SB582, Stern, SB761, Ashby, SB412, Limone, and Senate Joint Resolution 3. By myself on SNAP, I'll obtain a motion on the consent calendar. Okay, we have a motion on the consent count. If we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. So we'll now go to file item 10, Senate Bill 606, and I'll turn the floor over to Senator Becker.

Well, thank you, Chair Arreguin and Committee Members for letting me present this bill today. I also to thank the Committee staff for their work. I will be accepting the amendments. This bill is a passion project of mine. I would say.

It will require cities, counties, and continuum of care programs to proactively plan to end unsheltered home homelessness in their jurisdiction. This bill would also require that cities articulate their effective use of the Shelter Crisis act and related streamlining benefits in building bed capacity.

Furthermore, the bill will encourage small cities to participate in solving this problem and in regional homelessness planning processes to ensure that all cities do their part in addressing the unsheltered crisis facing our state. We're in the midst of a moral and humanitarian crisis. On our streets, people are dying in public suffering, trauma, violence and neglect.

And California consistently cited homelessness as a top issue facing the state. What's uniquely a California issue is the issue of unsheltered homelessness. Upwards of 75%, our homeless population is unsheltered. Nationally, that's about 20%. New York City, for example, is 5%. So unsheltered homelessness is really a California problem, and we need a California solution.

And the truth is, we can't wait to sit around and wait for permanent housing to catch up. We must act now to bring people and families indoors faster to save lives. Interim housing is a crucial rung on the ladder to permanent housing, but our goal is functional zero.

Functional zero is a system where no one has to sleep outside because there's always a place for them to go. And we're seeing huge advancements towards this goal. In San Jose, for example, in San Mateo county are proving that this is possible. They're doing the hard work of planning for functional zero and using all the above strategies.

So California has an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the nation in solving this crisis. And we do it with empathy and data driven, proven models. For the first time in my time here in the Legislature, I am optimistic. I'm confident because I've seen how quickly we can build the these interim units.

I've seen the communities, I've seen the care. I've seen people graduating from them onto jobs and permanent housing. And I know now that we can do it. And this bill is really making sure that every city plan to get to functional zero.

So this bill aims to help cities and counties better coordinate to address this crisis and bring one of our most vulnerable populations into shelter faster. And with that, I will tell one of my witnesses. I think my witnesses just stepped outside while I was sharing energy. So hopefully we'll have her here shortly.

But I'd like Samaj to present first. She's a resident of a dignitymoose community and invite you here to present today.

Hello. How are you guys doing?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. I am Samaj White. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns today. I am here to speak in support of SB606. I am here today not only as a concerned citizen, but as a passionate advocate for the thousands of people facing the same struggles as me.

I come from a loving family and a good background, but I had troubles just like anyone else. When I finally admitted that I couldn't figure these problems out on my own due to lack of resources, I sought help by calling 211 and I found First Step Communities, the Grove.

And that was my first step to a new journey as a human being. The first step to getting my life back on track is having basic necessities like a shower, clean clothes, and having space to think without the world watching me or judging me. Funding programs like the Grove gives people facing homelessness a mental break and hope.

Having someone to guide me. And like my case manager, Ms. Joy, they provide me with helpful resources like work search and resume building, linkage to mental health services and ultimately finding permanent housing. With the help of this program, I have opportunities at my feet that I can now pursue. I am becoming an overcomer and not a statistic.

I have my own cabin where inside I find peace and the opportunity to think about my next steps in life. I have a hot meal provided me provided to me three times a day. I have somewhere to shower daily. I have clean clothes to put on my back.

I have wi fi I can use for school and work, transportations to interviews and appointments. And there's always someone I can reach out to when I need a listening ear. Me and countless others have these resources because of places like First Step Communities who will put me in their rapid rehousing program.

That program will pay for my move in and my first deposit, will pay for my first month and my move in deposit. And they will provide me with subsidized rent for a year to get me started.

Going from staying in my car to having an amazing opportunity like this let me know that there's hope for all individuals facing these challenging times. Thank you.

Of course.

My name is Elizabeth Funk. I'm the founder and CEO of Dignity Moves. And I apologize. Schedule shifted and I wasn't prepared. Outside Dignity Moves is focused specifically on one issue, which is unsheltered homelessness. And unsheltered homelessness is not the same as solving the problem of homelessness writ large. But in California, it is the most devastating.

It's got the biggest impact on people's well being and it's the part of the problem that is the most solvable. SB606 requires local municipalities to assess what it would take to end unless unsheltered homelessness, not the whole problem in its entirety. And to be clear, getting everyone indoors is not the full answer.

But in California, the average cost to build a single unit of permanent housing is well over $600,000 per unit. It's less than $300,000 nationally. So a national policy that says we're going to focus on permanent housing only might work for the rest. But in California, we've got different realities and therefore we have different priorities.

Half of the nations unsheltered are in our state. We need to declare a different plan. Now, the is that when you assess what it would take to end unsheltered homelessness, it's shocking. It's not a big number.

Now, granted, it's just getting people indoors, but when you do that, all of a sudden you named a problem, you're halfway to solving it. Now you can start to marshal the resources towards a finish line.

And I can also tell you from experience the optimism that comes from that when there's a line that's ahead of you that you're all working towards. Where victory can be declared all sorts of things unleash, including pulling out to be. Both San Francisco and San Jose have done this.

They have declared that they are embarking on functional, unsheltered initiatives. Functional zero, quite frankly, simply means a municipality has enough beds so no one needs to resort to sleeping on the streets. SB606 would require the rest of the state regionally to follow that lead and say what it would take to end this problem.

Not make it better, but end it. And I believe that it's time to finally have the boldness to say we're going to end the suffering on our streets.

Thank you so very much for joining us today. Are there any other Members of the public in support of Senate Bill 606 who would like to express their support on the record? Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you. Good evening Chair Members, Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council and Spurs. Proud co sponsors and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members, Stephanie Estrada with Crew Strategies on behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public in support of SB606? Okay. If not, we'll take any witnesses in opposition to SB 606. Okay. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

And if I may just kick things off and just thank you so much, Senator Becker, for bringing this bill forward. I mean, as you and I have talked about, the state actually doesn't have a goal in terms of what are we trying to achieve to reduce or end homelessness in California.

You know, the state has established programs, we've allocated billions of dollars, but we have not established any quantifiable goal. And so I think this bill is really critical to have us explore what it would take to reach functional zero for unsheltered homelessness. And I think, as Ms. Funk said, we can do it. We know.

We know what it takes. And how can we align our resources to get interim housing built, to invest in the behavioral health and other wraparound services so we can actually make an impact in addressing unsheltered homeless while we're working on building the permanent support of housing, which, as you note, is, you know, 600,000.

That's the low end, up to a million in the Bay Area to build one unit of affordable housing. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward to start a conversation around setting a clear quantifiable goal. Governor Newsom has often said, you know, I will support more money for the H hat program.

If we establish metrics, well, this is one metric that we can look at. What is the feasibility of trying to achieve it. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I know that there was one technical amendment that our community staff identified, which I'm assuming. Yes. You're accepting. Absolutely.

And I know that there's another bill that will be, you know, that is going through Senate Housing by Senator Blakespear that may also be looking at how we can establish a clear plan and quantifiable set of metrics and goals for the state so we can align our resources to make sure we're spending those dollars effectively and we're actually having a measurable and real impact in addressing homelessness.

And as I think I've shared with you, somebody with lived experience of homelessness, this issue is deeply personal to me, and I really appreciate bringing this forward, and I strongly support your bill and will be voting for it today. And thank you for colleagues for indulging me. I'm very passionate about this issue.

So wanted to kick off the discussion, but want to open up for other colleagues for questions and comments. Senator Perez?

Yeah. Well, first and foremost, I just want to say appreciate you bringing this forward. Senator Becker. I think it's a great bill because I've seen the impact that achieving functional zero can have on communities in the City of Alhambra are actually quite, quite close.

And very soon after we finished building two of the housing projects that I approved while I was mayor there, we will have achieved it, which is kind of amazing to think about, you know, and it. It took work and resources to get there. It took coordination. Right. With other levels of government, but it is totally possible.

And I'm. I'm excited. I even flagged for my staff as we met over the weekend to discuss this bill that I was really excited to see where it would go and what would happen, because I think it's really important for cities to talk about these kinds of methods. Right.

Looking at the number of unhoused folks that we have in our local municipalities, our point in time counts that we do on a yearly basis, and comparing that with the number of shelter beds we have available actually tells us a lot.

And you can clearly see in cities where there are many more homeless than there are shelter beds available, that they oftentimes have huge issues with, you know, encampments and these other issues that, you know, frankly, residents often complain to us about. And there's a very clear and strong correlation.

So I love that this is just so rooted in data. It makes so Much sense. This is how we should be talking about it. I think when we talk about.

Oftentimes even when I talk to people about those that are unsheltered versus sheltered and what that means, even in the context of homelessness, many folks don't even know what the difference between the two is. Some even local City Council Members.

So this is really important for our local cities to be discussing because I think it gives them a better sense of, of this issue and how we can go about addressing it. Right. Because it's really a step by step solution. Getting someone into shelter is really the first step. Right.

And what we would like is to eventually get them those services, you know, help connect them to a job and to resources. But it's a step by step process. And this is really step one. I did have one question, and that was so my understanding of your bills. You know, this would.

Cities would sit down, they look at their point in time count, they look at the resources they have together and kind of do an assessment of themselves to see how close they are to reaching functional zero. But this wouldn't be contingent on whether or not they receive the HAPP funding, Right?

Because I realize there are some cities that are going to do that assessment realize, zero man, we're really off the mark. So this wouldn't make. There's no contingency to the HAPP funding with this, is that correct?

It's not a contingency.

Okay. Okay, great. Well, I'm excited about this. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes and to seeing this passed. I think there's definitely some more work to continue to do here to build upon this as we kind of get more people informed about what this means. What does functional zero look like?

Because as you mentioned, it is a very achievable goal. And I think that this is how we go about addressing homelessness. So just as the chair mentioned an issue I'm very passionate about and really love this bill. So thank you, Senator Becker.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Senator Obo.

I do have one. Thank you, Senator Becker. It's always really, I love to see authors, you know, my colleagues and authors bringing forth measures that they're very passionate about.

And I can, I can hear from your voice, I do have a, a question with regards to how would you accommodate the fact that right now the bill seeks to attach the requirement to the round six funding, but this round is already underway, so how would you accommodate the folks who already either have filed for the grant process or have already Filed, I guess, submitted their, their reports.

Yeah. Important logistical question. Let me see if my witness, if that's okay, has a. I think it's for round seven. I think that's an error. Okay. Yeah, that was my understanding thing as well. So it wouldn't be till round seven, actually, at this.

So is that going to be amended into the bill? Because I, I.

If that's not clear, then we can. If that's not clear, then we can.

My notes say round six, so clarify that.

Okay, yeah, I'll commit to clarifying that for round seven.

Okay, wonderful. Well, other than that, we're good. Thank you. Glad I asked.

Yes. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, just say that we need that round seven. That's a matter for the Senate Budget Committee, not the Senate Human Services Committee. I'll turn it back to you, Senator, closing the bill.

Well, I want to thank all of you. Yeah. I had many bills where the word passion killed every presenter, myself, and everyone on the board here. So everyone on the Committee here. So I just appreciate all the comments. Look forward to working with all of you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

I'll turn a motion on SB606.

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Perez which is do pass as amended to the Senate Housing Committee. Please call the roll.

Move.

[Roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. And thank you very much, Senator Becker. And then you got to go back to energy. Yeah.

You have one more bill?

We have one more Bill. Yeah, sounds great. Thank you. Okay. We'll now proceed to File Item 8, Senate Bill 411, by Senator Perez. And I'll turn the floor to Senator Perez to present on her Bill.

Hi. I'll turn the floor over to Senator. You may now present your bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I'm here to present SB 411, the Stop Child Hunger Act. SB 411 tackles student food insecurity by addressing gaps in school meal programs and the SUN Bucks Program, ensuring that all eligible children should be enrolled, are. California has made tremendous strides in expanding access to school meal programs, in recent years.

Notable efforts include California becoming the first state in the nation, in 2022, to provide free school meals to all students. In 2023, California implemented the federally based SUN Bucks Program, which provides students with a $120 EBT card during summer months to purchase eligible groceries from authorized providers.

Despite California's efforts, there remains existing gaps that leave eligible students without access to these critical resources. SB 411 will address three gaps in these school meal programs. According to state data, 5.6 million school children are eligible for the SUN Bucks Program, yet 1.8 million eligible children have not applied.

The first gap is the lack of automatic enrollment and the complexity of the SUN Bucks application process. The second is the family's reluctance to apply for meals through the use of a third-party platform, due to concerns that some sensitive data could be sold without notification.

The third issue is addressing the lack of SUN Bucks and on-site school meals, during school campus closures. Regular school breaks result in children losing access to critical nutrition, further straining family budgets.

SB 411 proposes key improvements to existing school meal programs, including establishing a single statewide user-friendly website for families to submit their SUN Bucks application, codifying key child privacy protections to prevent the sale of children's data, requiring school meal applications to include the SUN Bucks application to increase awareness and participation, creating the Better Out of School Time, or BOOST Nutrition Benefit, based on SUN Bucks, to combat child hunger during regularly scheduled school breaks and emergency school closures, and lastly, expanding opportunities to work additional hours and on-site meal options during school breaks and emergency closures.

As an education advocate, I'm carrying this Bill because we must do everything possible to address food insecurity for students, many whom rely on school-provided meals as their most consistent source of nutrition. This is a bipartisan issue we can all support. No student should go hungry due to inaction.

With me to testify today and help answer technical questions is Andrew Schein with End Child Poverty, and Ezer Pamintuan from Alameda County Community Food Bank. I respectfully ask for an 'Aye" vote, at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much, Senator. Good to see some fellow East Bay residents here, so, turn it over to you to begin your presentation.

Thank you, Chairperson Arreguin and Members of the Committee. I'm Ezer Pamintuan, Senior Policy Advocate at Alameda County Community Food Bank, based in Oakland. Today, one in four Alameda County residents experiences some level of hunger.

Alameda County Community Food Bank is responding to this record need by providing nearly 1 million meals every week, through our network of over 400 partners. Our distribution this fiscal year, to date, puts us on pace to provide 60 million pounds of food, which would be a record year, even greater than the peak pandemic year.

Furthermore, households with children are more likely to be food insecure—26% compared to 22% of households without children—and summer is the hungriest time for children when school is out, and students no longer have access to the free breakfast and lunch offered through California's Universal School Meals Program.

This is why we support SB 411, which would maximize the full potential of SUN Bucks. Having an online, responsive statewide application will help get the word out about SUN Bucks and make it as easy as possible for families who must submit an application.

SB 411 would also ensure that children can get a similar benefit during school closures of five or more days, outside of summer, such as winter and spring break, or when schools close unexpectedly due to natural disasters. Children have the right to the nutritious meals they need to grow, learn, and thrive.

And for these reasons, I respectfully urge your "Aye" vote on SB 411. Thank you.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator. Another proud constituent, Andrew Shane, from Grace Angel Poverty California. He/him. Thank you, Senator, for your vision. The California model is working For the first time, California data by the USDA show that we have lower hunger than the USDA.

And that's true, both for the current year, and the reduction in hunger over the last 10 years. But as Ezer and as the Senator already laid out, there is, there is much more to do, unfortunately. Those numbers are not zero. But that model of our school meals for all and other programs is working.

As Senator Perez outlined, one of the key things we can do is fully maximize the federal funds, through the SUN Bucks Program.

With those 1.8 million children that she spoke to, at $120 a summer, that's $216 million in federal food benefits that we must make sure come into California, that prevents child hunger and supports our food and farming economy.

We're also talking about predominantly children in immigrant households, who are either excluded from, or afraid to access, other benefits that would make them automatically eligible for SUN Bucks. Right now, thanks to the work by the CDE and DSS, there is a universal benefits application online, but it's a static PDF, so imagine trying to pull that down.

It's also not currently translated. They're working to do that, of course, but it's over the summer. So, even if you're a family, who do I submit it to? My school is closed, right? These are the challenges that we can address through that online application.

We can also improve children's privacy and improve parents' comfort level with submitting forms when needed. Right now, third-party platforms are asking for unnecessary information, such as children's gender, and we need to limit this to federal law and guidance, especially when we have sensitive information, such as family status, their income being asked.

Just in January, one of the third-party providers, PowerSchool, including used by West Contra Costa Chair in your district, had a major data breach that was considered the largest breach of children's data in our nation's history.

And then, finally, in terms of establishing the BOOST Program, we are talking about the ability to resource children and families during disaster, which obviously has come up on other bills. But imagine if after the Los Angeles firestorms, we could simply load benefits on the family's cards, right? That's going to take some time. Some technical assistance with DSS.

But we again applaud the Senator's vision because we have the policy tools, we just simply need to take take these steps. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public in support of Senate Bill 411. If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, affiliation, and position, for the record.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, proud co-sponsor, in support.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, in support.

Sarah Brennan, with the Weideman Group, on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

Annie Chou, with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Maida Castell Garcia, on behalf of No Kid Hungry, in support.

Becky Silva, with the California Association of Food Banks, a co-sponsor, and in strong support.

Josh Gauger, representing the County Welfare Directors Association, in support.

Whitney Francis, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Jeff Tardegia, an advocate, member of the California for SSI Coalition, as well as various other organizations. Strongly in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition to SB 411? I didn't see any opposition on record. Okay, we'll bring back to the Committee for discussion. Any questions or comments? Okay, moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Thank you. I'll turn it over to you, Senator Perez, to close.

Yeah. Nothing else. Respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. If you can, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 30. We'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you so much for joining us today and thank you for all the work you do. Okay, we have. We're gonna make some motions. So Ms. Quist, did Senate Perez record a vote on the consent calendar yet?

No.

Okay, why don't we lift the call on the consent calendar? Let me summarize the bills on Consent which were. File item three, SB422. Grayson. File item five, SB582. Stern. File item six, SB761, Ashby. File item nine, SB412, Limon. And file item 11, SGR3, by myself and Weber Pearson. And the vote is currently three. zero, yeah. So if you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that Bill on call as well. So let's go back to the beginning. So SB33 by Senator Cortese. Homeless peoples. The California Success Opportunity and Academic Resilience Guaranteed Income Program. I'll take a motion on that Bill. Okay.

Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Which is the motion is to do pass through the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. We'll proceed now to file item 2. SB 99 by Blake Spear. The Family Child Care Homes for the United States Arms Forces. Alternative motion on that Bill as amended.

Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh do pass as Amended to the Military and Veteran Affairs Committee. You can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that Bill on call as well. File item 4 is SB435 by Wahab. There were. There's a few technical amendments that the. The author is making to the Bill and entering a motion on SB 435.

Okay. Move by Senator Perez. And the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This is Senator Limon. SB435. Wahab.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call for Senator Becker. Thank you. And what's our next one? SB 802 by Senator Ashby. This is multifamily housing program. Home Key Home. The Hat program. The Bill was prior, including some prioritization for children and victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable populations. I'll entertain a motion on SB802.

Okay, move by Senator Perez. And that motion is to pass to the Senate Housing Committee. Okay, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's out. Five. zero, thank you. Okay. And so let's go back and do.

You want to go back and do the ones that we start there, or do you want to start with this one?

Why don't we go. Why don't. Why don't we go to sb411 by Perez, Stop Child Hunger Act. Let's let the call on that, okay?

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. 50. Thank you. Okay, let's go back and lift the call on the other bills. So consent once again, which consists of SB422, Grayson, SB582, Stern, SB761, Ashby, SB412, Limon, and Senate Joint Resolution 3 by myself and Senator Dr. Weber Pearson. If we can please lift the call on consent.

[Roll Call]

Okay, consents approved. 50. Thank you. Okay, and we'll lift the call on file. Item one, SB33 by Cortese. The current vote is three.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's at 5-0. Thank you. We'll move now to file item two, SB 99 by Senator Blakespear. The current vote is 30 as well.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. That bill's out. 5-0. Okay. We'll proceed now to back to file item four, SB435, Wahab. The current vote is 4-0.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. Thank you. 5-0. Next file item is file 10, SB606 by Senator Becker. And the current vote is 4-0.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's at 50. That completes our business, correct? Okay. Thank you, colleagues. I know it's been a really busy day. That completes our agenda for today. With that, the Senate Committee on Human Services is now insuring.