Senate Health Committee

The Senate Committee on Health will come to order. Good afternoon. First, file item number 1, AB 1088 by Assemblymember Baines, and file item 5, AB 1779 by Assemblymember Davies, have been pulled from today's agenda. That leaves us 10 bills on the agenda with three of them on our proposed consent calendar. File item 7, AB 1907 by Assemblymember Addis. File item 9, AB 2081 by Assemblymember Stefani. and file item 12, AB 2756 by Assemblymember Arrines. We will begin as a subcommittee of one until a quorum has been established. Very excited to see that our first author is here. So we will begin with file item 2, AB 2575 by Assemblymember Ortega. And strongly ask if there are any other authors I would like to present, you can come down to the room. and any other members of the Health Committee, you may come down as well. Assemblymember Ortega, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. You will have a combined total of five minutes for your presentation.

Madam Chair, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, and thank you so much to the committee for your great work on this bill. We are a proud co-sponsor of the measure. And I want to start by saying that the opposition in their letters and their testimony has said that as health facilities they currently do not deploy AI technologies to make care decisions and that they support a human in the loop at all times We fully agree with them on that policy and practice but if artificial intelligence is as powerful as they claim it is then it's not sufficient just to have policies and procedures in place. It's not enough to just have a human in the loop when you're dealing with powerful black box technology like generative AI. What workers, patients, and the public need are standardized and statewide guardrails on the use of artificial intelligence tools in healthcare. What AB 2575 does is codify the guardrails necessary to ensure that human healthcare professionals are in command of AI tools and not commanded by them. The requirements in the bill create those conditions that allow health care workers like Sandy to do their job using AI tools in ways that are the most effective, equitable, and safe. Innovation and regulation can and have coexisted for years. We see this in pharmaceuticals, in medical devices, in precision medicine, and many other areas. So this bill simply puts in place accountability to support the safe development and use of AI tools by human health care professionals for the benefit of patients, workers, and the public. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. J.P. Hanna with the California Nurses Association sponsored this bill.

Good afternoon, Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Navneet Pryor on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon, Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Good afternoon, Jennifer Robles with Health Access California, also on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Good afternoon. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California and the engineers and scientists of California in support.

June Sugar, California Alliance for Retired Americans. I was a nurse for 17 years, and I used protocols and algorithms. I can assure you they are not perfect.

And I'm glad I have experience.

You will both have a total of five minutes for your presentation. Good afternoon, Chair and members.

Thank you, Chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce, here in opposition to AB 2575. We'd also like to thank Senator Weber Pearson and the committee for the recent discussions related to the disclosure requirements. We do believe there are still significant issues with AB 2575. To be clear, Cal Chamber believes AI and health care should not replace clinicians. it should be there to support them in the practice of medicine. Medical professionals can and should use their professional judgment when using AI tools. With that said, AB 2575 would undermine current patient-centered policies and conflict with medical staff guidelines by protecting any worker who provides direct patient care from corrective action. This bill would essentially allow healthcare workers to make independent, subjective decisions about patient care without true oversight or accountability, even if those decisions fall within their scope of practice. If a patient is harmed or even if harm is averted, after a clinician overrides an output, the health facility would be unable to take remedial measures. This would shift health care away from physician-led care to compliance-driven care, which raises serious patient safety concerns. For patients, AI technologies are improving health care outcomes. With the help of AI, sepsis is being detected hours earlier than before. There have been significant improvements in accuracy of cancer screenings, and patient medication orders can be screened for interactions, allergies, and errors, to name a few. AB 2575 puts these benefits at risk by discouraging the use of AI in the clinical setting and, worse, dissuading the innovation and creativity of future tools. We share the goal of responsible AI use in healthcare, but unfortunately, AB 2575 does not achieve these goals. For those reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition. Did want to thank the chair and the staff for their work on the amendments related to the disclosure section. Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Dental Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yance with Sloat Higgins Jensen on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. MJDS on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in opposition.

Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California in opposition.

Missette Short on behalf of Adventist Health in opposition.

Stephanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies as well as the California Association of Health Plans in opposition.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in opposition. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Society of Pathologists, the California Radiological Society, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and OCHIN in opposition. Thank you. Christy Foy with the California Kidney Care Alliance in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Zoe Johnson with California Life Sciences in opposition. Jonathan Clay on behalf of Scripps Health in opposition. Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors on behalf of Sutter Health in opposition. Good afternoon. Gilbert Lara here with Biocom with an opposed unless amended position. Good afternoon. Jasmine Vai on behalf of Civil Justice Association of California and Respectful Opposition. Thank you.

First of all, once again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the discussion that we had over the weekend. You know, I, too, have experienced bias as a Latina immigrant in the health care space since I was nine years old. I've had to translate for my parents. Actually, since I was in kindergarten, when I learned to speak English, I had to go with them to every doctor appointment, whether it was for them, my brothers, my sisters, my neighbors, because they didn't have the language to help them. And I saw through those experiences the bias that happened in the healthcare space. And unfortunately, some of those biases are being integrated into the AI tools that are being used. And so you absolutely have my commitment to address your concerns and figure out a way to move this bill forward. but ultimately my goal in today's hearing is to address some of the health care questions and we did with I took your amendments because I agreed with them and I respect you as a health care provider and the input that you had in this bill as far as you know some of the other concerns that were brought up with the opposition my door is open I'm happy to continue the conversation and I would ask that they update their opposition letters because they're still creating this narrative or moving this narrative from a bill that was in print in January. I've made significant amendments throughout this process because I do want to get to a place where all of my colleagues can support it and that we can get a signature on. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to present AB 634, which would prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, or sale of products containing or marketed as containing Tyneptine in the state of California I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the committee chair and staff for working diligently with my office to get this measure ready for today. I can't say enough about how our staff just works behind the scenes to make things happen for all of us here in the legislature. So big thank you to staff members. AB 634 will prevent Californians from being exposed to tyneptine, a dangerous substance dubbed gas station heroin. Gas station heroin is often sold over-the-counter at retail establishments such as gas stations, tobacco retailers, and small markets with no age restrictions. This means that when children go to buy their favorite snack, they also have access to gas station heroin. Despite not being approved by the FDA for any reason, Some companies are distributing and selling products containing tyneptine to consumers, including products with high doses. While approved in some European and Asian countries to treat depression or anxiety, this substance can produce both an opioid-like high and an opioid-like addiction when used recreationally. Many other states have already acted against this substance from placing it on a schedule to restricting its sale. Amendments to the bill taken in this committee have narrowed the focus of it to a restriction on commercial activities only. Joining me today to testify in support of this measure is Ryan Sherman on behalf of the California Narcotics Officers Association. Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just take a couple minutes to briefly go over. I think the settlement did a really good job explaining what the bill does and appreciate the work of your staff and your willingness to hear this bill. In strong support of the bill, Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association, also representing a number of other peace officer associations listed in the analysis as well. You've heard what this product is. We've got serious concerns, and there's been serious problems in other states. So with that, I would just submit that we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

George Sorries with the California Medical Association in support.

Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy. on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and Strong Opposition. Sarah Weber with the Drug Policy Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm confident that we're on the right track to protecting Californians from the dangers of gas station heroin through this measure, and respectfully request your aye vote when appropriate. Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all this afternoon. Under federal law, every patient that walks through the doors of an emergency room must be treated regardless of their ability to pay. Over the past decade, emergency departments across California have received almost 15 million visits annually, and approximately one in five of their patients were uninsured. When an uninsured patient cannot pay for their care, hospitals and emergency physicians rely on the MADI EMS fine to partially reimburse the cost of life-saving medical intervention. This program is supported by a small add-on of $2 to every $10 of court fines. AB 1607 keeps these critical lifelines in place by extending the sunset on the MADI Fund, ensuring we can keep dedicated physicians on shifts, ambulances on the road, and emergency room doors open. Without this support, hospitals will be forced to stretch care within their already dwindling numbers of physicians, which means longer wait times and greater cost of care. With millions of Californians bracing to be stripped of their health coverage due to HR1 impacts, the number of uninsured patients seeking treatment in emergency departments may grow exponentially. AB 1607 simply asks for more time, more time for the MADI-EMS fund to exist and allows this lifeline for emergency medicine to continue. This bill protects access to care at the most critical moments when seconds matter, and we need all hands on deck at this time. Because when someone dials 911, the last thing on anyone's mind should be whether the system can afford to save their life. This afternoon, primary witnesses in support with me today to highlight the impact of this bill is Mr. Tim Madden on behalf of the American College of American Physicians, California Chapter, and John Pollan, Regional Executive Director of Sierra Sacramento Valley EMD Agency. Take it away.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, were co-sponsored of AB1607. Last April, Rand published a report on the challenges EDs are facing nationwide. According to Rand, the viability of emergency care as we know it is at risk. This was before H.R. 1 was passed. H.R. 1, as you know, is taking billions out of the hospital-based care system and will leave approximately 2 million Californians uninsured, leaving them nowhere to go but the emergency department. While HR1 will disproportionately hurt the health of our most vulnerable communities the timeliness and quality of care that each of us receives when we walk into an emergency department is exactly the same Because all patients are treated based on their condition not their insurance Quite simply, the MADI fund results in more physicians working in emergency departments. Without AB-1607, less money means every patient walking in waits to see fewer doctors that are working. If this bill does not pass, wait times will increase and patient outcomes will worsen. The already fragile emergency care system has no financial bandwidth to absorb this cut. Medi-Cal reimbursement for the most complex and acute patient visit is a shocking $108. The MEDE fund reimburses even less for patients with no insurance. This cannot be sustained. Since 1987, the MEDE-EMS fund has been the only source of reimbursement for emergency physicians when treating uninsured patients. If AB 1607 is not passed, it will be another cut to the already fragile funding for the emergency care safety net all Californians depend on. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Hello, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is John Pollan, Executive Director of the Sierra Sacramento Valley EMS Agency. I'm here on behalf of the Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association of California, representing 34 local EMS agencies serving all 58 California counties. We appreciate the member Gonzalez for his work on this bill. The legislature previously determined that EMS providers, physicians, surgeons, and hospitals, as part of a requirement to provide emergency medical care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, bore higher costs for their services, but often received partial or no payment for patients. As a result, a series of laws were enacted to provide compensation for patients who cannot pay for their medical care. California law authorizes counties to establish a MADI fund to reimburse physicians, surgeons, and hospitals for the cost of uncompensated emergency care and for other essential EMS system purposes. It also authorizes counties to establish a Ritchie's fund as part of the MADI EMS fund to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers throughout the county. If no pediatric trauma centers exist, the funding must be used to improve access to and coordination of pediatric trauma and emergency services in the county. The MADI-EMS Fund and Ritchie's Fund are funded through revenues generated from local penalty assessments of fines and forfeitures for criminal offenses and motor vehicle violations. The original authorization for the additional penalty assessment was previously extended through January 1st of 2027. EMS is an essential component of California's health care safety net. At a time when EMS providers are being forced to reduce or cease providing critical emergency medical services and hospitals are at increased risk of closing, it is vital that the current EMS system funding sources be maintained. As such, we respectfully ask for your support of AB 1607. Thank you.

Hello, Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association, in support. Thank you. Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the counties of Ventura and Santa Clara, here in support. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Brennan McCarthy with the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you. Thank you Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support Thank you Hi there Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support Thank you. Jennifer Snyder with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support. Thank you. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County of San Diego in support.

Jeff Neal representing the county of Contra Costa and Yolo, both in support. Thank you. Farrah McDade-Ting on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members, Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Cottage Health, in support.

Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledged advocate with ACLU CalAction. The ACLU is a proud member of Debt-Free Justice California, where our mission is to reduce the harm of the criminal legal system and to end unjust fees. I'd like to acknowledge the importance of the AMS fund and how many lives it has saved. We stand firmly behind this fund and its mission to provide dignified care for everyone, regardless of their insurance status, in order for people to receive the treatment they deserve. However, we must stop relying on a system that extracts wealth from people for their mistakes and actively looks for new ways to punish them. Black and brown Californians are subject to targeted policing and over-represent at every stage of the criminal legal system. They face significantly more criminal fees and associated debt because of this reality. This is not just an economic justice issue, but a racial justice one, as criminal fees are used as a racial wealth extraction policy lever. There is a profound irony in funding health care for one vulnerable population by extracting wealth from another. We cannot claim to value dignity and equity when our solution to one crisis relies on exploiting a vulnerable community. Research demonstrates that criminal fees cause lasting financial and emotional harm to people that are system impacted and their families. Often forcing families to choose between putting food on the table and paying their debt. True care shouldn't be funded by punishment, and we must find more sustainable methods to support this important AMS fund that does not rely on stacking monetary punishment for people who make mistakes. In addition, the recent People v. Cop decision by the California Supreme Court will make collections for the EMS fund increasingly unstable. The ruling held that fees assessed to individuals must consider an individual's ability to pay such fees. This is likely to reduce any revenue previously generated from this increased fee and will require additional funding to operate at its current capacity. Rather than extending the sunset on this exploitative model, we encourage the author and policymakers in this room to reconsider more stable sources of funding that do not severely burden low-income Californians. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1607, unless it is amended to strike the sunset extension. Thank you.

I'm going to ask the author just to understand from my point of view the issues that have been raised by the ACLU, and I know you believe in those as well. So we're on the same side of what we believe in, what needs to happen, but somehow every time this issue comes up, I think we need to push in a different direction than just accept the money from where it comes from and not make that a part of our thought processes. How we pay for these programs really matters. And this bill relies on criminal fees and vehicle code violations as its source. I'm encouraged by the Supreme Court's decision in COP, but that process still requires individuals to come forward and demonstrate their inability to pay. And I think there are far too many low-income Californians who may never make their way into a courtroom to make a showing of inability to pay. So when criminal fees go unpaid, the consequences can be very significant. Adverse credit impacts and wage garnishments and so many other things. There are the same people who can't afford to pay for their health care. How's that? We are talking about the same people. The legislature has repeatedly recognized concerns around fines and fees, and I know in my first few years here at the legislature, I was supportive of a number of repealing a number of fines and fees. Senator Mitchell at the time led that. And we actually repealed 46 of 90 criminal fees. That had a significant impact. I also have concerns about the long-term stability of this funding source. If we're going in the direction that I hope we continue to go in, then more and more or less and less money will go into these funds. So I'm just asking you to think about and incorporate into your thinking. I'm not suggesting a very specific amendment, but to look at two ideas in the five-year sunset so that stakeholders can return to the table and find a source that doesn't rely on criminal and vehicle code violation fees. And the other idea is a phased-in reduction in the amount collected through these fees culminating in the sunset year. And that's to encourage stakeholders to work towards a more stable and equitable funding mechanism. Again, we are not going, I'm not suggesting in any way that we stop providing the funding that's needed. but how do we do both? How do we make that we have health care for those who are too poor to pay for it, but then not take it from the fees that they'll be paying on the other side. So those are my thoughts. And, again, I will support the bill. I'm just asking a consideration of these other issues. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my senator. And, yes, we do share the same sentiments and values, and we do agree time and time again on those picket lines and protest lines and talking about access to systems, especially to a system that's broken and working against us immediately on day one. And I appreciate your comments on that, and we'll go back to discuss with the coalition. And I want to extend my gratitude to the stakeholders like ACLU, Debt-Free Justice, Sinella, and Baker Center for their work in this space. And looking forward to coming up with a plan, especially as we've seen nationally with HR1 cuts and what it's going to do to those same communities as well. And we have to put everything on the table to push back and fight back against that as well. So I want to thank you for that. And we'll take that back to the coalition as well. But in an emergency, the doors must always stay open. This fund is a small fee that helps keep life-saving care within reach of every Californian, regardless of the color of their skin. This is a reminder that illness does not check your insurance card first. A heart attack does not wait for your paycheck to arrive. Our state's doctors cannot wait either, not when every moment counts. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning or good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. I pleased to present AB 1906 a bill to ensure all Californians have access to at cervical cancer screening tests AB AB requires coverage of these tests without cost sharing as ordered by a patient provider Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers when detected early, but screening for it can be invasive and inconvenient. Working women and those who live in health care deserts struggle to access these tests, which are essential to detecting the disease early. Research shows that rural women are more likely to die from cervical cancer, and black and Native American women have far higher mortality rates. Allowing patients to test in their homes expands access for rural and working Californians, increases preventative screening levels, and reduces strain on our health care system. Research from the CDC shows that increased screening has reduced cervical cancer incidence and deaths by 70% since the 1950s. AB 1906 will promote early detection, reduce health disparities, and strengthen preventative care across the state. I will be accepting the chair's amendments, which align coverage with clinical guidelines, limit test orders to in-network providers, and apply the bill consistently across the health plans. With me today, I have Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood and Christine Smith on behalf of Health Access.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California here today in support of AB 1906. The 109 Planned Parenthood health centers in California collectively provide 1.3 million patient visits each year. This includes nearly 100,000 cancer screenings and 2.6 million STI tests. While routine screenings can detect high-risk HPV and pre-cancers, unfortunately, up to 90% of HPV infections are asymptomatic, and timely screening remains a challenge. At-home testing offers a safe and effective option for patients who may otherwise delay or forego care. AB-1906 would require coverage for at-home cervical cancer screening kits, which were recently FDA approved. This bill also addresses an ambiguity in existing law to clarify that Medi-Cal providers can utilize existing billing codes for at-home STI testing. This will expand access to critical preventive care, and it will help to ensure that Medi-Cal patients have the same access to care as those with commercial coverage. We ask for your aye vote on AB 1906. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Christine Smith with Health Access California, and we're here in strong support of AB 1906. At Health Access, we work to ensure all Californians can get the care they need when they need it at a price they can afford. This bill is a strong step toward that goal. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers when detected early. When caught early, the survival rate is about 91%, but that drops to about 20% when diagnosed at a later stage. The difference is access to screenings. Yet too many Californians face barriers to in-clinic screening, including cost, lack of time off work, transportation challenges, and provider shortages, especially in rural communities. At-home screening tests help remove those barriers and make it easier for people to get screened on their own time and in their own homes. From a consumer perspective, no one should miss out on life-saving preventive care because it is not covered or accessible. This bill will ensure that both privately insured Californians and Medi enrollees can access these tests without out costs It also promotes a smarter healthcare system by investing in prevention helping avoid more serious and costly health issues down the line Expanding access to screening will improve early detection, reduce disparities, and save lives. Ultimately, this bill is about making our health system more equitable, more affordable, and more responsive to patients' needs. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support.

Andrea Matizka on behalf of CPCA advocates in support.

Jennifer Robles, registering support for Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Jennifer Snyder with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Life Sciences in support.

Good afternoon. Omar Altamimi with CPAN, the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, here in support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, District 9, in support.

Good afternoon. Gilbert Lara with BioComm in support.

please come forward, state your name, your... Madam Chair, members, Stephanie Watkins. On behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies as well as the California Association of Health Plans, I would first and foremost like to thank the author and the sponsors and all committee staff for working with us so diligently. We're hopeful. We're presenting these to our members tomorrow, so we're hoping to have a reevaluation of our position going forward. But, again, we appreciate all the time and commitment that was given to review this, what was a previously kind of old, antiquated mandate, and sort of conforming that and doing some code cleanup. So thank you for that.

It is a passion.

First of all, I want to thank you for identifying the one that we had out of whack with the feds. So I really appreciate that. You think you know everything about a bill, and then you find out, maybe you don't. Anyway, AB1906 expands access to cervical cancer screening by ensuring Californians can access at-home tests without costing share. The trip analysis shows the benefit comes at a very very low cost about one cent per member per month Early detection prevents more intensive and expensive treatments down the line reducing cost pressures for the patients and plans and the patients So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Motion made by Vice Chair Senator Valladares.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 2247, a bill that would establish the trauma, healing, and Resilience Investment for Victimized and Exposed Youth Act, or the Thrive Act, in four counties that funds fast and responsive mental health services for people 25 and under impacted by gun violence, including victims and witnesses. In 2022 alone, nearly 2,000 children and youth 25 and under were injured or killed by an act of gun violence. While gun violence affects all communities, Black and Latino youth, as well as youth in low-income communities, are more likely to experience or witness gun violence, often with lasting mental health impacts. Existing systems that are supposed to act as safety nets to provide mental health services to survivors are riddled with red tape, can be a financial burden, and often difficult or impossible for youth to meaningfully access. Youth need access to timely and responsive mental health support in the wake of tragedy. Trauma can lead to long-term harm and cycles of continued violence. Research has shown that timely access to mental health care protects against these long-term consequences. AB 2247 aims to simplify the process that impacted children and young people endure while seeking help by reducing wait times, providing survivors with a list of mental health care providers or peer support specialists in the county, and establishing a mechanism to ensure survivors are not required to pay for these services out of pocket or wait to be reimbursed. When children and youth who have experienced violence get the support they need in the immediate aftermath to heal, they are set up for a brighter future. With me here today is Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, who will read a statement from Giselle Eastman, who's a youth survivor, and Gabriel Garcia with Youth Alive. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Gabriel Garcia, and I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for Youth Alive. We're a community-based organization in Oakland that has several public health approaches to gun violence prevention, intervention, and healing. Prevention is upstream. It's youth programming. Intervention is services tailored for those who are most likely to pull a trigger or be shot. And healing is tailored for those who have already experienced the greatest traumas, losing a loved one to gun violence or surviving a gunshot wound. Today I'm going to talk about healing and specifically our mental health counseling. When it comes to survivors of gunshots, they experience many barriers to accessing care, whether it's lack of awareness of available resources or simply not feeling adequately served by general counseling services that may be available to them, or it's the complicated bureaucracy and paperwork requirements that they have to navigate in order to receive care. That is why AB 2247 is so important. It helps remove some of those barriers. And us at Youth Alive, we provide free mental health counseling to survivors of gun violence in Oakland. We want to make sure that opportunity and those resources are available to other youth survivors of gun violence throughout California. This pilot project will allow us to make that a reality, will allow counties to help figure out how to make this easy, accessible and at no cost to gun violence survivors, especially those young folks who have the most opportunity to heal and the most capacity for resilience. To share more, Capri is going to read a statement from one of our clients who received mental health counseling services after she was shot. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair members, Capri Walker with CSJ reading a statement on behalf of Jazzy, who is a client of Youth Alive and a survivor of gun violence. Jazzy was unable to be here with us today, but she still wanted to share her story, so the statement I am reading will be read from her point of view. When I was 16 years old, I was shot in the face. A group of friends were over for a sleepover at my house in Vallejo, California. All I remember is being on the phone the next morning when a boy, who I thought was my friend, suddenly got up and fired his gun. I still don't know why he shot me or why he had that gun. That was two years ago. In the weeks and months after I was shot, I felt like nobody felt my pain, both physical and emotional. I needed help. I signed up for California's victim compensation twice but never got support. It wasn't until I met a mental health counselor at Youth Alive that I started getting resources and learning it's good to talk about my trauma. A therapist changed everything. Having a solid support system helped me get back to myself and focus on the fact that I'm still here. My therapist provided a warm, safe, and quiet space, and I finally felt heard. By passing the Thrive Act, we're saying that survival should not come with lifelong suffering. Dignity, protection, and care are not privileges. They are rights. I'm grateful I was able to get support, but there are countless survivors still going without. That's why I still rise, and I'm urging our state legislators and governors to support AB 2247, the Thrive Act. Thank you, and thank you to Jazzy. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

Hi there. Sarah Weber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support.

We would love to see any survivors of violence. I didn't get into this. At Youth Alive, we have a responsive program where, in addition to gunshot survivors, we help victims of stabbings, physical assaults. For this criteria, being able to delineate the line between an assault, a stabbing, I think there is clarity around surviving a gunshot wound that would make this program easier to administer. But we also have a concern around cost. Knowing the state budget situation, having a more limited pool for us to start from with this pilot program would allow us to show proof of concept that if it works out, we could then identify other criteria to bring in showing that Alameda County, San Bernardino was successful at identifying how to deliver these services to victims and survivors. would love to open the conversation on down the line, how we can open that eligibility, because we know that anybody who experiences trauma, especially as a result of any kind of violence, is going to live with that until it is treated. This pilot program is an opportunity for us to do something about those that are experiencing the most urgent, most deadly, fatal forms of violence, but absolutely want to see all survivors of violence have these resources.

It's a good question. You know, there's already limited funds there, and folks are already struggling with limited funds that are there to make sure that we are compensating victims of crimes overall. all. And so I think that the there is consideration, but I think the likelihood is low because folks really do feel like it a limited pot And to take some of that away to give it to these young people who are experiencing not only directly gunshot wounds but even witnesses, excuse me, or their family members or loved ones who are survivors. We are looking at various opportunities, creative methods for funding this, and taking the time to really figure out where it could best fit. It's not to say that we've ruled out the victim's compensation piece, but I just want to double down on, you know, like even in this budget, the expectation to expand it to hold what already exists has been tough. And so for folks who are really big advocates of that fund, adding another kind of space that we would want is really hard, I think.

in Jazzy's story you heard that she applied for victim compensation twice and never got the services that she needed her experience is an isolated incident one of the key things that we do for victims and survivors at Youth Alive is navigate them through the process of applying for victim compensation and even with somebody by their side with expertise on how to do that paperwork and complete the requirements not all of our victims and survivors get approved or get services Being able to design a pilot program that is really specifically trying to reduce some of those bureaucratic paperwork requirements that are ingrained within victim compensation is one of the goals of this piece of legislation. And that's one of the reasons why it wasn't built in from the start. But as the assembly members shared, if victim compensation was able to hold this and was able to identify ways that we can remove some of that bureaucracy that so often gets in the way of victims and survivors getting the timely support that they need, we would be happy to consider holding the program there. Okay.

This language wouldn't get in the way of any mandatory reporting requirements. it simply takes the requirement off of the individual applicant, so the youth survivor in this case, to report. So one of the constant barriers that our victims and survivors run into when they're applying for victim compensation is that the requirement for a police report sometimes is the end-all, be-all for victim compensation to consider whether somebody is eligible. And within that police report, there are many things that can disqualify somebody from receiving services. Like if somebody is too traumatized to talk to the police and there's language in their report that says that they were non-cooperative because of that, they can automatically be disqualified. So that barrier is one of the reasons why we wanted to at least protect the individual who is applying from having to go through that process because we one see it be restrictive at times to require that and two understand that it could be re for somebody to go through that experience of reporting an incident One of the ways that we try to account for that is if they have a statement from another kind of victim service organization like us, for example, who can testify to the fact that this person experienced a violent incident, but this in no way, shape, or form would get in the way of any kind of child care agencies or any organizations, entities that have some stewardship over an individual, especially a young person, from reporting. It's simply taking the onus off of the youth themselves to report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a good – I appreciate that explanation. So the only question – I think this is a really important program. then my question has to do with the four counties. How did you determine these particular four counties? And the reason I ask it is not because none of my counties were chosen, which is the reason I ask it, but also because I did violence prevention programs that were focused on building capacity within the community to build the necessary relationships to reduce youth and gang violence. And when I looked at, and this has been a while, when we looked at statistics, the choice was interesting. There may be a reason why you picked maybe a county that doesn't have as much youth violence shootings. It's not always gangs, but in our instance, in my community, it was. I'll start by saying we initially, I represent Los Angeles County. We have rates that are incredibly high when it comes to gun violence. We talked to our sponsors and coalition that we've brought together. And so we kind of came together to really think about which areas would have the most impact, given what we've seen, especially more recent acts of gun violence that have really impacted communities. One in particular happened in Stockton earlier this year or might have been at the end of last year. And so that was part of how we decided. I don't know if the sponsors want to add anything else related to those four counties. So Stockton, the reason I ask is the communities we looked at, I was in Salinas. So it's a rural agricultural community, but we had very high incidence of gun violence, were Los Angeles, Stockton, and Oakland. And so that's why I'm curious. Solano County is – Stockton is located in San Joaquin County. It's not one of them. Alameda County would be, and maybe San Bernardino is the other one. Anyway, I'm going to support the bill, but I just wondered if there was some analytical reason why you picked those four counties. So thank you for that.

I just wanted to commend the author for bringing this bill forward. Really important discussion. and it sounds like a lot more work needs to be done in this area to ensure that particularly our youth who are impacted by gun violence get the services that they need. I just wanted to point out, too, that the least we can do is, ensure that they get services because we haven't moved meaningful gun control laws. We have an administration that has an abysmal record on gun control laws. And so I'm happy to move the bill when the time is right. And thank you for your work in this space.

We will definitely take all of those recommendations into consideration. and really appreciate my colleague from across the aisle also sharing some of your concerns, but even thinking about opportunities for us to be thoughtful in funding. And just overall, I think the documentation piece is a good one for us to really take back and talk about. Thank you for bringing up the county's question as well. Senator, I really want to make sure that we're being really thoughtful and have a stronger kind of explanation around that. Lastly, I just wanted to share that I was invited to San Quentin Prison, now Rehabilitation Center, about a month or two ago because the men who are incarcerated there found out about this bill and mentioned that they truly believe that had this bill been around when they were children, that their lives would be very different. Many of them have spent 30, 40, 50 years in prison, and their understanding of how to respond to gun violence, because they didn't have mental health services, was to retaliate with more gun violence, was to continue the cycle that we know we need to end. And they asked how they could support how they could show up from where they sit and recognizing the importance of a bill like this I think is really important for us to really think about how we truly invest in community safety and public safety and not continue the cycle of violence through just incarceration and not recognizing the importance of true rehabilitation through that. So thank you all so much for the opportunity, and I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Aye.

Valadez.

Caballero.

Durazo.

Gonzalez.

Grove. Menjivar.

Padilla.

Rubio. Smallwood Cuevas.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I am pleased to present AB 2531 today. In December of last year, the Trump administration finalized a rule to prohibit the Veterans Health Administration, known as the VA, from providing abortion care. The potential effects of this decision are profound. Veterans in California who have worn the uniform and put their lives on the line are now being denied basic reproductive health care from the VA because the Trump administration's discriminatory policies toward women. Throughout my tenure in the legislature, I've always maintained a steadfast commitment to our veterans. Whether it was through my time as chair of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee or through the legislation I ran to place Proposition 1 on the 2024 ballot, it has always been a priority to ensure that we take care of the people who served our country. And taking care of our veterans is exactly what this bill does. AB 2531 puts our veterans first where the federal government has failed them. It narrowly expands access to our existing uncompensated care grant program so that it will include veterans whose federal health care coverage no longer includes abortion services. This will ensure that veterans who cannot receive abortion care or abortion counseling through the VA system are not left behind. The bill also requires the California Department of Veteran Affairs to include a link to the abortion.ca.gov in their existing list of resources for veterans to ensure that our veterans know they have access to this critical care coverage. With me to testify in support of the bill today is Angela Pontes from Planned Parenthood.

Thank you, Chair and members. Angela Pontus, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, we are a proud sponsor of AB2531. In 2022, following the Dobbs decision, Senator Weber Pearson had the foresight to author AB2134, which created the uncompensated care program to ensure abortion and contraception would be accessible to Californians and to support the safety net providers offering such care AB 2531 narrowly expands this existing program to include veterans in the eligibility in response to recent federal action as stated that severely restricts access to abortion care through the federal VA system. Under this new policy, the VA can only provide abortion in life threatening circumstances. This is intentionally high threshold that has dangerous and cruel consequences. Despite California's constitutional protections for reproductive freedom, our state's veterans and VA providers cannot obtain or provide abortion care or even abortion counseling. Without this bill, veterans may only access abortion care if they have the means to identify a non-VA provider and pay out of pocket. AB 2531 addresses a significant inequity for a small population in a simple way. We ask for your aye vote on AB 2531. Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the

California Action in proud support. Thank you. Andrea Mavisco on behalf of CPCA Advocates in support. Thank you. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Henry Ryan on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kudulakis in support. Thank you. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs District 9 in support. Thank you. Kevin Guzman of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. AB 2531 is framed as caring for veterans, but true care means providing support that addresses the need for both mothers and children, not using taxpayer dollars to expand abortion funding. This proposal claims veterans are being denied health care, but abortion ends a human life, and murder is not health care. Look at what our veterans actually face. According to HUD and the VA, on a single night this past January, 32,495 veterans were homeless. They are still waiting on housing, on mental health treatment, on help with their disability claims. This is the unmet need. Yet just this February, the state sent $90 million to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, and AB 2531 now asks us to spend more? If we truly want to honor those who served, our priorities should be meeting those urgent needs, not writing larger checks to abortion providers. Our veterans carry some of the highest rates of PTSD, depression, and suicide in the nation. Many already live with deep trauma. Even the American Psychological Association acknowledges that some women experience clinically significant depression and anxiety after an abortion. For veterans already hurting this is not a risk the state should be funding Nothing in this bill requires that a veteran be told about adoption pregnancy resource centers, parenting assistance, or other life-affirming options. It points to one path and excludes alternatives that many women would choose if they knew the help was available to them. Our veterans deserve better than taxpayer-funded abortion and one-sided information. They deserve real support, real resources, and real hope. Abortion does not heal trauma. It adds to it. Give our veterans real care, not state-funded murder. Vote no on AB 2531.

Senator Benjavar. I felt compelled as the only veteran on this committee to respond to those comments. I'm a recipient of the VA. That's the only health insurance I've had for the past 15 years. I can tell you there are a lot of services for veterans. The VA I go to specifically has a section for women veterans, and they do baby showers every single month for pregnant female veterans to provide them with anything they need to become a new mother. They have group counseling for women if they're pregnant. They cover fertility services, six rounds of IUI if they want to become pregnant. There's a lot of services that exist for female veterans in the reproductive care, but now because of this federal government, one option is being taken away from them. So while the VA is providing other options, your bill steps in and provides that extra option that isn't allowed right now. So I want to thank you for that additional support.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Move.

Senators Weber-Pearson.

Valadez. Caballero.

Durazo.

Gonzalez.

Grove. Menjivar.

Padilla.

Rubio.

Senators Gonzalez?

Grove?

Menjivar, aye.

Perez, aye.

Senators Weber Pearson.

Valadez. Caballero.

Durazo.

Gonzalez.

Grove. Menjivar.

Padilla. Perez.

Rubio.

Valadez, no.

Senators Weber-Pearson?

Valladares?

Caballero?

Durazo?

Gonzalez?

Grove?

Menjivar, aye. Padilla. Perez.

Rubio. Smallwood Cuevas.

Senators Weber Pearson.

Valadez?

Caballero?

Durazo?

Gonzales?

Grove?

Menjivar, aye. Padilla? Perez?

Rubio?

Aye.

Senators Gonzalez.

Grove. Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon to everyone else. I'm pleased today to present on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel, AB 1915. This is a measure that will support California's neighborhood restaurants by cutting red tape and modernizing outdated regulations. Neighborhood restaurants, as we know, are the backbone of our communities, and they're struggling, and they need our support. Across California, they help employ so many of our community members. They also have the most diverse workforce in the state, but too many are continuing to struggle and have not recovered since the pandemic, especially with all the other regulations that, as a state, we've put on them. You know, after enduring such unprecedented challenges during the pandemic, these beloved businesses, you know, are really grappling with staying open or are closing. And these are major challenges, especially as we know right now we have cost pressures across our state. AB 1915 will support California's neighborhood restaurants by modernizing California's food facility code to reflect realities of how small businesses operate, amending outdated facility requirements around restrooms, ventilation, equipment, and creating a streamlined permitting pathway to allow qualified contractors to self-certify routine equipment installations, making it less expensive to open and operate a restaurant. AB 1915 was written in partnership with small business leaders to address these issues head-on, and in doing so, AB 1915 will help keep our restaurants afloat and assist them on the long road back to recovery. AB 1915 is supported by a coalition that includes the Los Angeles County Business Federation, BISFED, the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, the California Restaurant Association, local restaurants, Business Council, and I'm pleased to have here with me in support to testify, Eddie Navarrete here on behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Alan Morales, owner and co-founder of Civil Coffee in Los Angeles. and with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to them.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Eddie Navarrete. I am the President of the Independent Hospitality Coalition representing a diverse network of small business owners across the L County landscape Our industry is not stabilizing It is contracting In Los Angeles, more than 84% of restaurants reported declining business last year, with many operators experiencing revenue losses between 30% to 80% due to economic shocks, declining tourism, and reduced consumer spending. At the same time, the cost of doing business continues to rise across the board, including food, labor, insurance, rent, all increasing faster than revenue, creating sustained pressure that small businesses are struggling to absorb. AB 1915 directly addresses a piece of that pressure that we can actually have the ability to fix. It removes the hidden costs embedded in outdated building and health codes, requirements that no longer reflect the businesses, how they operate today, but still drive thousands and in many cases tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary construction. This bill will allow simple, like-for-like equipment replacements such as an ice machine or a stove to be replaced without months of delay. It eliminates construction triggers like additional restrooms or ventilation systems where there is no measurable impact to public health. It updates the food code to reflect modern operations including temperature monitoring, practical hand-washing standards, and flexibility for smaller or older spaces. Although some of these minor technical changes, they are real cost drivers that in most cases can make all the difference for a small business. AB 1915 is also the result of meaningful collaboration with health officials and regulators to identify where the code can evolve in a way that maintains safety while reducing unnecessary costs and delay, creating clear standards, improving consistency, and allowing enforcement to focus on real risks. At a time when vacancies are rising, small businesses are closing, and our local economies are under significant strain. This bill provides a practical and immediate way to reduce the cost of doing business and support the businesses our communities depend on. On behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, the community that we represent, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Chair and members, my name is Alan Morales, and I'm the co-founder of Civil Coffee, a Mexican-American coffee company established in Los Angeles in 2015. My brother and I built our company from a simple pop-up into multiple cafes in Highland Park in downtown Los Angeles in Studio City, employing dozens of people. My family has immigrated to this country in search of opportunity. My parents worked hard to build a modest life, and their support has allowed us to take a chance on a dream and eventually open up our first brick and mortar, as I said, in Highland Park. What surprised us was that one of the biggest challenges was not serving our customers or creating jobs, actually navigating regulations that often treated our small coffee shop like a full-service restaurant, despite the low-risk nature of our coffee preparation. The mandatory requirement, as an example, to add a urinal, added thousands to our construction costs before we could even open, and continues to cost us in maintenance over time. For small businesses, these dollars matter. Another example is outdoor dining. Our city of Los Angeles' temporary emergency order outdoor dining program increased our seating capacity by roughly about 50% and helped us grow revenue about 20%. In an industry with slim margins, that additional revenue can be the difference between surviving and closing. However, current building codes for additional restrooms on outdoor patios do not reflect the value that these spaces bring to not only our businesses but also our community. AB 1950 recognizes that there is a smarter way It modernizes outdated requirements and creates practical solutions that maintain safety creating meaningful ways that can increase revenue all while reducing unnecessary costs delays the bureaucracy for small businesses that do not have the financial backing to hire people to navigate the difficult code Beyond Civil Coffee, AB 1915 helps future entrepreneurs who are trying to create jobs, invest in their communities, and pursue the same opportunities that my family had the opportunity to do. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support also on AB 1915. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you, Dr. Robert Pearson.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Travel Association in support.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

These are floors of the California Restaurant Association in support.

Anai Matias Santiago, policy intern with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City and California Community Foundation in support.

Amanda Bloom on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators in support of the bill.

Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy here on behalf of the Cameo Network in support.

I promise I will be quick. Chair Weber Pearson and fellow senators, I am Rebecca May on behalf of the Contractor State License Board. The board voted to oppose AB 1915 unless amended at its June 5th board meeting. We would like the author to consider removing the self-certification provision from the bill. This bill would allow contractors to bypass an inspection performed by local building departments if they self-certify that they're replacing like-for-like commercial restaurant equipment and that the installation meets all state and local code requirements. The permit inspection process provides essential oversight to protect consumers and business owners from harm by requiring a contractor to resolve any noncompliant work before a final permit is approved. The installation of like-for-like commercial restaurant equipment may seem straightforward. However, replacing equipment that is a few years old might require an electrical or gas line upgrade, and the installation, if not installed correctly, can present a fire risk or danger to the employees and customers if not installed correctly. Examples would include the tipping risk of a deep fryer that's not leveled correctly, a leaky gas connection when swapping out a commercial range for the same model, an ice machine that doesn't drain properly, causing water damage or mold growth. When local building officials aren't able to catch these faulty installations through an inspection, the responsibility for code compliance is effectively diverted from local building departments to CSLB without providing additional resources to perform investigations or enforcement action. Restaurant owners who inevitably experience subpar installations will seek resolution by filing complaints with CSLB. We very much appreciate the author staff and the bill's sponsor for working with us to address our concerns and I'm hopeful that we can come to a resolution as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Yes.

It's good to see you all here. I plan to support this bill today. However, I do have similar concerns, as has been raised by the Contractor State Licensing Board. So many of the other parts of the bill are fine. There's no issue, and that should make the issues that you raised, right, deal with a lot of the issues, the red tape and this and that, like an establishment that is takeout only to operate without customer restrooms. I mean, there's a whole list of good things that I don't have any issue with. I am concerned about a contractor who does this work on your behalf, on an owner's behalf, self-certifying that their work has been done correctly and safely. So I'm worried about that because who's, you know, it's like the fox looking, what do they say, fox checking out the hen house, you know, the hen house. So, you know, if we put that very, very important responsibility in the hands of the same person who performed the work, are we assured, are you assured that it is the safest possible procedure that's been taking place? So it could create risk to public safety and yourselves as property owners. So I really ask that as you continue to move through the process, I want to strike the right balance between what you're asking for, which is efficiency but also safety. And I know Senator Ruby is not the author, but if Senator Yu or your witnesses can give me an update on any kind of conversations that's been taking place on the role of building officials in the inspection process.

Thank you. Yes, thank you. We were just recently informed about the opposition position. I know the vote was in June 2nd, but this was just recently. We would love to be able to work with the CLSB further on this. I think there's a lot of refinement in the language of the self-certification of what can be included in there. When it comes to when someone mentioned about upgrading an electrical system or upgrading a gas line, those items would not be eligible. So we really wanted to be careful that we thought about this thoughtfully and thought with safety in mind. These are very usually simple permits that oftentimes a restaurateur in desperate need will do themselves. What this does is it provides a pathway for those restaurateurs for things like an espresso machine or it could be, again, we mentioned a deep fryer. Things that have already been in place that might be working for a long time and just need to be replaced. And in those instances, we were hoping that this could be, again, through further refinement, create that safe environment so that we could have a self-certification for contractors that are experienced with these types of installations.

And, you know, maybe there's others. I'll reach out and let you know what we've done. I had several bills come through my local government committee that have to do with very similar issues of health and safety and yet wanting to do it faster and or you know with less expensive So I'd be glad to share those thoughts with you as well. They're not identical, but they are very similar in nature as far as what we're trying to accomplish. So I'd be glad to work with you on that as well.

Thank you. My issues were the same as Senator Durazzo, and as long as they can be resolved, then I'll be happy. I think we need to make sure public safety is principled, which is part of the reason that CSLB exists in the first place. But I do appreciate this bill because the opportunity to streamline and to get moving and get things done quickly is really important, especially in the restaurant business. And for a coffee shop such as yours to have to wait is really a detriment. So I appreciate you coming forward. Thank you for being here. And the author's not here, but I'm going to support the bill today, and it'll come to the floor. If it doesn't get resolved, I won't be supporting it on the floor because there is safety at stake here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify, these are simple projects, projects that businesses shouldn't wait months to be able to facilitate and upgrade their facilities to meet the needs of their clients. And they're signed under penalty of perjury, right? So they certify it, they self-certify it, but it's under penalty of perjury that if they were lying and they did do something wrong, I mean, again, you'd have the aftermath, but it would affect their contractor's license as well. So it's under penalty of perjury, correct? I'm not sure about that detail, but that does sound correct. Yeah, I think we discussed that on our call. Yeah, okay. It is under penalty of perjury. Sorry, I should have asked it a different way.

I appreciate the jobs you create. I know it's hard. I've been in business for 36 years, sometimes in this state, in spite of this state, and it is very hard to upgrade. It is very hard to navigate until the burner thing comes out. You know it's all going to be in big trouble. and the exhaust system on the fan. I don't know how you're going to make it through it, but this is a good step forward.

One, I want to express my support for the bill and thank, I know we have Senator Rubio presenting it today, but both Assemblymember Gabriel and Assemblymember Wicks for authoring this. My family comes from the restaurant industry. My dad owned the taco room in El Serino for many years on top of being an electrician. Full time, I spent my weekends in the restaurant as a child growing up with him as he was operating and managing that restaurant. My family also owns the very famous Manuel's El Tapayac, located in Boyle Heights. They also have another offshoot in the city of industry. And in East L.A., it is, you know, considered to be really kind of like a historical monument in the community. And so, you know, restaurants play such an important role in kind of bringing together the community, acting as a gathering space for people, and really creating identity that I think is so critical and important. But operating a facility and really trying to design one that unique especially when you are a small business owner who just starting out and really wants to bring something unique to the area can be so incredibly challenging I watched my dad do it while he balanced two jobs, and it was hard. It was so incredibly hard. So I understand, you know, the concerns that have been raised today, and I have no doubt that the authors will work on resolving some of those challenges, but I do think that there does need to be some streamlining of the processes here. Sometimes our laws, frankly, don't make sense in practice as we're actually working on building out these types of spaces. And we want to make sure that our restaurant industry is successful. Anybody that's in local government can tell you what an impact it has when you have a successful restaurant business in your downtown corridor. It is a game changer.

Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the witnesses here as they discussed. This is just a practical solution that will continue to maintain safety. These are just quick fixes. And I just want to share and highlight that as a body, as a legislative body, we have evolved from the strict regulations as now we allow pop-ups on the street corners and parking lots. And they don't have to follow any regulations. You know, we've seen full kitchens with propane tanks. And the problem is that we're asking restaurants to follow so many rules, so many regulations, that the biggest concern that I hear and complain from local restaurants is having to compete with restaurants in front of them without an actual brick and mortar. You know, they just come up and compete, whether it's tacos or whatever the food is. And, again, these are restaurants that have done everything that we've asked them to do. and I think that we should allow them to at least be competitive with those that don't have to follow regulations.

So moved.

Senators Padilla. Padilla, aye.