Business — 2026-06-08 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, doctor, members of the committee. AB 72, which would create an electric vehicle economic opportunity zone in Riverside County. This is a district bill which would direct California's Labor Workforce and Development Agency to work with the county of Riverside to make electric vehicle manufacturing jobs and education more accessible in one of the fastest growing regions in the state. And at the appropriate time, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote.

My present to you, Madam Chair.

Senator Nilo? I have a few questions, but I suppose the most important one is, what does the Labor and Workforce Development Agency bring to this that local initiatives do not And what's the nature and form of the economic development organizations in this area?

So Hollywood became a concentration of industry in Southern California because of tax credits?

If you follow the 30s and 40s?

I challenge that premise. And Silicon Valley evolved initially really completely organically, largely out of commercial developments from Stanford University and to a certain extent University of California also, I'm not aware of targeted tax credits in the technical industry. But that point aside, what about other lower-income communities relative to this effort?

Exactly.

But for it to be successful as a pilot, you have to choose a location as a pilot.

By virtue of adopting this bill the state will be saying that it wants to advantage Riverside County relative to this effort versus others Now you say each person can advocate on behalf of their own

what is the nature of the economic development, local economic development efforts in this area? What's the nature of their economic development organization? Do they have a corporate economic development organization that's a collaboration between the private sector and the public sector there?

In some cases.

Regionally. Like here in the Sacramento region, we have an organization called the Greater Sacramento Economic Council, which works, it is largely private sector driven, but with substantial financial contributions in addition to the private sector from public sector entities, virtually every single one in Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Yuba, and Sutter counties, cities and counties within that. Is there something like that?

And is that an incorporated entity that is both supported by?

Yeah. That would be the area where you would pursue this sort of policy, it seems to me, as opposed to the state putting its thumb on the scale for this particular area as opposed to Modoc County.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to support your bill today. I understand where my colleague is coming from. I would have liked some consideration of some demographics that are consistent in the state, because I think in rural California, the infrastructure just is not in place for the electrification of our vehicles, vehicle infrastructure. And that includes way beyond passenger vehicles to some of the other changes that we're experiencing. But also the challenge with using Opportunity Zone language is that that's a federal program. And that federal program has tax credits and tax incentives as part of the program. And I think that's what you were referring to is it's a very prescriptive program that identifies areas by economic factors that would argue that we should be spending or utilizing resources in those areas. And this, I don't think, is necessarily tied to the – so anyway, it's just a comment. I thought the committee analysis did a good job of just identifying it, and I think it probably makes a lot of sense. What you're doing is really important. But I also think that there are opportunities to look at other energy sources and to do creative incentives as well, and that's biogas and hydrogen. So we can look at really creating economic opportunities in our community. So thank you for doing this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I just personally want to say I think that there's a lot of EV programs that are, in my opinion, redundant. And that at not only the state level but even the counties are doing it as well as the federal government I think one of my biggest concerns in the state of California is there are a lot of redundancies right where it not necessarily about this bill It's just about the programs, right? And I think Senator Caballero and I share this as well as you. So, for example, I represent the Bay Area, and I will say that even though we are home to my district, home to Tesla and so many of the EVs, renters are unable to have this because there is no infrastructure, right? And there has been a lack of investment in infrastructure to potentially go more green and much more. And we are spending a lot of funds to have people purchase these types of vehicles, yet not enough to actually make it realistic for the average lower-income consumer. The example I've given in the last couple of years was that the Ford F-150 pickup truck was the number one selling car in America for 30 years. It just got surpassed by the RAV4. They invested heavily in the F-150 Lightning vehicle, and they stopped just because of the fact that, again, the infrastructure and lower-income individuals that have these types of jobs where they have to drive and commute, it's not realistic if there's no infrastructure. So I fully support the investment in moving forward, especially in district-specific areas. But I hope that whoever's thinking about these types of programmings really try to make it a little bit more holistic. So I do have an I recommendation. I hope that you take some of the comments into consideration just moving this bill forward. But with that, would you like to close? I would just only say that we definitely have to make sure that as the state continues to invest billions of dollars into not just traditional EV infrastructure, but also the incentives for us to make sure that when factories are being built to manufacture these vehicles, not just the vehicles, but the batteries and all the other things that come with it, What communities are going to benefit from that? And are we going to provide an opportunity for all Californians to benefit from that no matter where they are? And we want to make sure that we begin to create a program that we can utilize for parts that have been traditionally neglected to ensure that they are part of that benefits and the livable wage jobs that will come from those. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Perfect. Thank you. We're going to establish quorum, if we can have a roll call. Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Choi? Here. Choi here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Adagin? Caballero? Here. Caballero here. Grayson? Hi. Grayson here. Menjavart? Nilo? Here. Nilo here. Smallwood Cuevas? No. Smallwood Cuevas here. Strickland? Umberg? All right. We have established quorum. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta on file item 2, AB 72. Thank you, Assemblymember. Motion is due pass. Assemblymember Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragene? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland? Umberg? All right. That bill will be on call. We're going to move on to, I could have sworn I saw Erwin. Oh, okay. F. Item number 4, AB 685, Assemblymember Salace. Assemblymember, anytime. Thank you. Thank you. I am President AB 685. I am grateful to you and the committee for staff for the hard work and thoughtful analysis of this bill. AB 685 establishes the Small Business Resiliency and Innovation Fund to strengthen California's small business assistance infrastructure at a critical moment. California's economic success is driven by our small businesses. They create jobs, driven innovation, and serve as economic anchors in communities throughout our state. to technical assistance and financing remains one of the biggest barriers to long-term success for many entrepreneurs, particularly those in underserved communities. AB 685 recognizes that California must continue investing in the long-term resilience of our small business sector, importantly investing in proven small business support tools, the Technical Assistance Program, TAP, and the Capital Infusion Program, SIP. This investment is especially important to women-owned, veteran-owned, minority-owned, immigrant owned and rural small business owned that often face additional barriers to accessing resources and rely on the technical assistance provided by the programs this fund would support. Recent amendments updates eligibility criteria for small business technical assistance centers to receive small grants through California's Small Business Technical Assistance Program TAP, importantly allowing the Women's Business Centers to apply as a network. I want to thank the California Business Development Center Network, the sponsor of this bill and their partnership and continued support and advocacy on behalf of California's small businesses. Just last week we received new engagement from additional stakeholders and our teams are connecting on the matter. I am joined today by Danny Fitzgerald, Regional Director of the San Diego and Imperial Valley Small Business Center Network and Nancy Swift, Chair of the California's Women's Business Center, to testify in support. Thank you, Senator Wahab, and thank you, Assemblymember Salace, for your continuous support of the Small Business Assistance Programs through AB 685. AB 685 is a critical funding mechanism. The Small Business Assistance Programs, which are the largest programs across the state, are the Small Business Development Centers. I oversee the one in the southernmost part of the state, one of five. We serve over 100,000 small businesses every year, providing about 10% of those services in other languages. We serve everything from refugees and recent migrants to Main Street businesses as they're accessing capital, trying to develop and grow their businesses, to our innovative economy as well, really trying to be able to support those businesses and continue to grow through equity investments and so forth. A couple of things we're super proud of, of those equity investments, over 27% go to women or people of color. Like I said, about 10% of our services are provided in a language other than English, providing services in over 20 different languages across the state of California. This funding is critical because it's needed to augment funding that has either sunset or gone away due to federal administration charges, where we're faced with the continuous demand and high need of small businesses as they're facing economic pressures today, but don't have the type of support that they had during the pandemic. And so this is that type of funding to be able to augment what we receive from the state to provide, in particular, the access to capital that they need, providing tens of thousands of hours of access to expert level advisors. The new amendments actually broaden the program in terms of its actual support and clarify particular things allowing different types of nonprofits public educational institutions municipalities or any other program that happens to be running a small business assistance program ensuring that our small businesses receive the high quality support that they absolutely deserve. And so we thank you for your support for this bill. Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Lead support. Yes. Two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wahab and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Swift, and I'm the chair of the California Women's Business Centers Network in strong support of AB 685. The network is made up of 21 centers operating independently across California. And while each of our centers is deeply rooted in its community, we all work together as the state's only coordinated small business assistance program specifically for women. The collective model works for our communities. California Women's Business Centers create $79 in local economic benefit for every dollar invested. And since 2019, California Women's Business Centers leveraged approximately $278.2 million in capital, including loans, grants, and equity, against $12.4 million in TAP. We're especially proud of that capital. 65% of that capital went to women of color-owned businesses. That return really matters. 76% of our clients are women. More than half of them are women of color. Many of them are immigrants. 40% are rural-based entrepreneurs. These are the underserved entrepreneurs that Assemblymember Salache mentioned earlier. The impact of the centers goes beyond dollars, though. Since 2024, our child care business clients addressed an economic development need and assisted our child care businesses to increase the child care slots in California by 12,013. So I'm here today, one, to say thank you to Assemblymember Solace for your continued leadership on this critical issue. and united with our fellow business assistance programs because demand is outpacing resources and TAP has been oversubscribed. For example, women's business centers have received only 60% of the funding that they're eligible for in the last two years. Thank you very much. All right. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Opposition. Two minutes. We are not in opposition. We are taking a no position. If I can speak for two minutes. Yes. Madam Chair and Senators, CalAsian has reviewed the June 3rd Amendments to AB 685 and has some concerns regarding the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria of the Small Business Technical Assistance Program. We are also concerned that the bill's enactment will not result in supplemental funding for nonprofit operators of technical assistance programs as intended by the author. Currently, there are no provisions in the bill to ensure that the $26 million will serve as a supplement rather than a replacement for the SBTAP funding proposed in the governor's proposed budget and the Senate and Assembly budget bills. We contacted the author's office and met to discuss our concerns. Additional meetings are planned We appreciate the author openness to addressing these issues In addition to speaking with the author we shared our concerns with committee staff and sponsors of the bill We will continue to keep the committee informed of any developments as we are engaged in good faith discussions with the author about potential amendments. CalAsian Chamber is holding off on taking an official position on the bill at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition? Two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Julian Canetti, President and CEO of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. First of all, let me say we appreciate the author's commitment to strengthening for small business. We have worked with him since he's came to the legislature and are proud to call him a friend and all the work he's done to help underserved entrepreneurs and especially our emerging diverse communities. And we look forward to working with him even further. We were proud to support AB 685 initially. However, following further review of the June 3rd Amendments, we have moved to a neutral no position at this time as we work with the author and our technical assistance partners on potential improvements. Although the June 3rd Amendments may appear technical on surface, they have significant implications for resource access and eligibility. Our perspective is focused on ensuring the bill continues to expand access in a way that is inclusive and effective on the ground. We want to ensure the program continues to include trusted community-based nonprofit providers. A reopening eligibility under SBTAP will help maintain access to culturally competent bilingual assistance for all communities and entrepreneurs who rely on it. We believe strong clarity and guardrails are needed to ensure program integrity, particularly in maintaining safeguards like the prohibition on using state funds to match other funds and by clearly defining or codifying in new program structures. It is critical that these investments grow the ecosystem rather than shift existing resources, ensuring funds are directed through established programs or clearly authorized ones, and that they are explicitly supplemental will help move us in the right direction. Our goal is simple, to reach a place where this bill fully delivers on the promise, and we can once again be strong supporters of the bill. And again, thanks to Member Salachi for all his hard work and his team's work on this. Thank you. We appreciate it. All right. Do we have any Me Too's both in support and opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. And we'd like to do this part pretty quick. Chair, Senator Dean Grafiel with Capital Accuracy here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support of AB 685. Thank you. Morning Madam Chair, Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support. Gustavo Gonzalez on behalf of NorCal SBDC on support. Scott Rogowski on behalf of NorCal SBDC in support. David Nelson on behalf of the National Small Business Advocacy Council in support. Dara Dotto with Cameo Network and we support. Suzy Pryor on behalf of the Central California Small Business Development Center, Opportunity Stanislaus, and the Monterey County Business Council in support. Laura Colbrough on behalf of the California Association for Local Economic Development in support. Priya Oluwalia NorCal SPDC in support Danny Fitzgerald with the San Diego and Imperial Small Business Development Center in support Alan Archuleta here on behalf of the Veteran Business Outreach Center in support Christina Rico on behalf of the Small Business Development Centers of California in support. All right. Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're going to move to the committee members. Committee members, Senator Caballero. Assemblymember Salachi, could you address the issues that were raised in regards to the amendments taken in June? Yes, thank you, Senator Caballero. We actually, you know, this is a first experience for me to have a bill that was supposed to be a great bill for all, and of course got some advocates at the end that had some concerns. Literally through the weekend, my staff worked through these amendments, and we're still working through them. As you saw, they're not fully opposing, but they're definitely shared concerns, and we're definitely addressing them. And so we are continuing those discussions. Again, we have friends on both sides that are supposed to be supportive of an issue that supports small businesses. So we are definitely addressing them as we speak. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. And it's not unusual to find out at the last minute that you've got some opposition. But I want to recognize you and thank you for doing this. There is a report out by a professor at UCLA that has analyzed small business data in the state of California using California data, using state data. And what's amazing about it is that his analysis is that the small businesses created in the state of California, a majority of them are immigrant small businesses or immigrant families that start a small business. It's a way to economic success. You control your future. And that those small businesses contribute to the economy significantly so that because of them, we are the fourth largest economy in the world. And if you extracted that information from the growth of our business sector, that we would be the eighth largest in the world. And so significant contribution to our state, and it's important to recognize that the more that we have resources to back them up because our laws are different, the kinds of responsibilities they have as business people is different, and it's good for them to have the resources necessary to be able to help them along. So thank you for the bill, and at the appropriate time, Madam Chair, I will move the bill. Thank you. Give me two seconds. All right. We have. Can I have a comment? Yeah, no, I was going to go to you. Oh, I thought you were including. I just had to write her down for motion. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Well, thank you. You're so efficient, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and appreciated the conversation and discussion and your willingness to work with all of parties involved to get this over the finish line. I sit on sub four. We just voted to support TAP in our budget Senate sub-four committee because we know how important small businesses are, as my good colleague from Madera laid out. I also want to say that it's not an either-or. It's a both-and. And especially now, I think about the small businesses in my district. I'm currently doing a project with BizFed, which is a business academy. A lot of these businesses are preparing for the Olympics. A lot of these businesses are now trying to gear up in the next week, the final touches and making tremendous investments. extending themselves to be ready for the World Cup. So if we want to ensure success, if we want to make sure that the majority of our business community sees a return from having 15 million visitors come to Los Angeles, to California in a couple of years for the Olympics and the thousands of folks who will be here in the next couple of weeks, we have to prepare small businesses to engage. And certainly we know technical assistance is important. But those grant funds and the flexibility of those funds will go a long way to ensuring that we get all of the tax revenues, sales tax revenues that we can to come back to the state. So this investment is really about making sure that California sees a return on investment. And I want to thank you for bringing this issue forward. Senator Nilo. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am supportive of the bill, and I will be voting yes under the understanding that you will be talking with both the Hispanic as well as the Asian Chamber about their concerns. A couple of questions. Why is it urgency? Obviously, the support at this point of supporting our business directly, we want to make sure we get the support as soon as possible to them. I get that, but if this bill goes through the regular process and the governor signs it, that will happen by somewhere around October, whereas a regular approval, the bill would become effective just two months after that. And I ask the question because you have a significantly higher threshold of approval. If there's any particular hiccup, it would be unfortunate for it to fail by virtue of not getting the 27 votes when the difference in implementation time is two months. So I'm just wondering why the – That's a fair concern. I mean, fair concern and feedback. And I definitely will bring it back to our sponsor bill as well and see if there's any change. But for now, that's where it remains, and we'll definitely take the feedback. Yeah, and my support or lack of isn't related to that. I just – it's curious as to why we'd have an urgency on an implementation timeframe of two months or three months or whatever. The other is the proposal here notwithstanding, I think that probably every small business supporter of this, as well as the two chambers that have concerns, would be inclined to agree that the statement that state-imposed regulations are probably the biggest challenge to any business in the state, including small business. And it would seem to me that if we are going to support a program where we're actually allocating money in this bill, which is a little bit unusual, but nonetheless that we're allocating $26 million for this assistance to small business, and yet we don't really have much movement in terms of relaxing the regulatory environment in the state of California, which most severely affects small businesses rather than large businesses, such things as wage and hour laws and meal and rest breaks. Not that there's anything wrong with the idea necessarily, but they are very prescriptive. and big businesses have a much easier time tracking and dealing with that than small businesses do It quite a burden and are ever minimum wage requirements All of those things, I think if you asked most small businesses, would they rather have a significant relaxing of those regulations versus direct assistance like this? And I'm not saying that's the choice, but if you gave them that stark choice, I suspect they'd take the former. So I'd just like to make the case for that, that regulatory burdens most severely affect small businesses and might not be in such a need of this support if they were able to operate a little bit more unfettered with some guidelines from the state but not quite so prospective, prescriptive, excuse me. Senator Choi. Thank you, Chair, and Assemblymember Solace. Thank you for introducing this bill to spur small business activities to maintain resilience and innovative ideas. Small business is the backbone of our state economy, and we need to boost them as much as possible. When you speak of small businesses, I wonder what criteria, if you have set any criteria of selecting who's going to be eligible, if you can elaborate on that, and whether they, many, as stated a while ago, many small businesses are run by immigrants. And immigrants means that many people may not be accessible to this kind of funds. So how are you going to let them know of this availability of the funds? and then also whether there will be bilingual, trilingual, different kind of materials will be produced for the general public, especially immigrant population with lack of fluency in English, you will have access to that available funds. And my last question will be, once they are selected, how you're going to oversight their performances after the fund has been provided? Instead of just giving the money away, there has to be performance measurements. And so if you can also define small businesses, meaning that who are the small businesses? Have you defined those terms? Thank you, Senator Choi. And I have our technical response. Yeah, thank you, Senator Choi. So small business, that's such a hard definition because I think for every definition there's 10 more definitions. But typically these follow kind of a very, very broad definition of who the small businesses are that are getting the assistance from the programs like the small business development centers, the women's business centers, other programs like community development financial institutions that provide that type of support. And so that's very broad. And so we typically it looking oftentimes at the very broad federal definition which is in simple terms under 500 employees or under certain revenue thresholds depending on what type of industry that they in And so helping all of those as well as people that are entrepreneurs that have yet to start a business And I appreciate your question in terms of the languages because that something that super important I know in our area, in San Diego, over 15% of the services we provide are in a language other than English, of course Spanish being one of the predominants, Arabic, Mandarin, Tagalog, et cetera, as well as other languages that we're ensuring these small businesses are able to do it. migrant business owners. We particularly work with them very, very closely to be able to provide that service. And I really appreciate your last question on in particular on ensuring this. So these funds, the way in which the state administers this program, and this is to augment that, is on a reimbursement basis. So we have to spend the funds. We submit a request to reimbursement to the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development through the California Office of Small Business Advocate and show those expenses were used specifically for the service. The amendments talk about how the original intent of this program of TAP and then the capital infusion program that goes back even further, all were around ensuring that type of capacity and all those responsibilities showing the funds were spent correctly. Thank you. Who's going to do that oversight? The California Office of Small Business Advocate, as they do today. How many businesses do you think estimate will be eligible for this fund if this passes $26 million? So the small businesses don't receive the funding. It's the small business assistance programs, nonprofits, public educational institutions, multiple other organizations. I don't know that exact number of how many would be eligible. Right now, the current number of recipients, I want to say, is around 80, and all of those would remain eligible, and there's probably a number that would probably increase along with that as well. Okay. Based upon your answers, I'll be supporting. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Archuleta. A follow-up question to your witness. In our communities, in our districts, we have chambers of commerce, Montemarino Board, Chamber of Whittier, Downey, whatever it might be. They're operating, some of them, really on a shoestring. Would they be eligible because of the type of business they run to promote small businesses? They may be. Each one is going to be on a kind of a case-by-case how they're particularly funded. I know we fund a number of them through our programs at the Small Business Development Centers. So, for example, I work with the Asian Business Association, which in essence is a chamber of commerce in San Diego. We've worked with other chambers of commerce, like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Jose and others. And so depending on what they're currently funded to be able to do or they're able to work under an existing program or partner with a women's business center or a small business development center, we all do work with them as well. So this would open up a door, I'm thinking, to them across the state. It keeps the door open as it is today. And so this provides additional clarification on what it is. So let's say one of those chambers of commerce is funded from their county or their city to provide small business assistance. Now they would be eligible. That's the addition to. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. And then I do have one comment, at least. Our local small business groups in Santa Clara that have historically been working to – obviously, Santa Clara County is Silicon Valley, if you will. What we have seen is a lot of these programs that have been working and tied with the federal government have updated their paperwork and we have been flagged by our small businesses where the small businesses actually sign on whether they give a lot of information And I want to make sure that all our senators who work on these issues know this I've already elevated it last year, but they sign a lot of information off. Many of them, many of the small businesses, largely undocumented individuals as well, are different statuses. give a lot of this information that's largely turned over. And this is at the federal level and they sign as, you know, under a declaration of perjury. So I do want to make sure that there is clear information on all of the documentation that we are talking about. If that is something that you can potentially incorporate just as like a heads up warning, you know, any type of information that is going to go out if you apply for some of these technical assistance. So that is just my comment. It's not directly related to the bill, but it is absolutely important, especially as we are, you know, we mention all these ethnic chambers, right, and yet we are not doing the best to kind of forewarn them that your information will be handed over to the federal government, you know, if you are seeking a grant, if you are seeking this information. this is 100% what we have been informed. And so I just want to just make sure that we kind of state this, right? Where is the information held, things like that. With that, would you like to close? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And to all the senators today, I want to just first begin by saying, as a former executive director of a chamber of commerce, the last seven years of my life before coming to the legislature and Lakewood, this is why our senator and I overlapped at one point, the work that we did there with the small business community. Lakewood is a next to a bigger chamber which is Long Beach Chamber a much larger chamber But I say that because I think when we introduced this bill it was exactly that How do we how do we bring help and support to our small community our small businesses and to address your earlier comment? It was actually a originally wildfire response to how do we help these businesses that were directly impacted During the wildfires and that was where initially the conversation started And to my commitment, again, to our two chambers I spoke today with concerns, we are definitely in conversations. This is a bill that I think that brings collaboration and unity amongst our business community and small business community. So I'm committed to doing that and working with folks to make sure this comes out in full support. But again, thank you all for your comments as we do address businesses that are providing services that are women-owned, that are veteran-owned, that are minority-owned. And to your point last, Senator, Madam Chair, I will take that feedback and include that to the discussion as well. Thank you. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have Senator Caballero who has made the motion. Can I get a roll call vote? Motion is due passed. The Senate Appropriations, Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Carriero? Aye. Carriero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg? All right. That bill's on call. I do want to highlight that we're going to go to file item number one, ACR 173 by Assemblymember Carrillo. This is vote only. Could I get a roll call for that? Motion is to be adopted. Could I get a motion? Senator Menjivore. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagine. Aye. Adagine, aye. Caudillero. Aye. Caudillero, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nilo. Smallwood, Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas, aye. Strickland. I'm Berg. All right. That bill is out. 7 to 0. Could I get a motion on consent? Again, file item number 3, AB 3. Thank you. So, file item 3, AB 375, AB 1587, and, you know, Senator Strickland has made the motion. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrero? Aye. Cabrero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Mendivar? Aye. Mendivar, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg. Yeah, yeah. That consent is out. Ten to zero. Can we call absent members for file item number two, AB 72, by Assemblymember Jackson? Motion is due pass. The Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Labor and Retirement. Current votes six to zero with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Adagine. Aye. Adagine, aye. Menjavar? Nilo? Menjavar, aye. Nilo? Strickland? Strickland is no. Umberg? That's it. Eight. You did it. Eight to one. I just want to make sure I can. Yeah. So that item is out 8 to 1. And then I, since we already have quorum and everyone's here, let's go over a file item number 4 again. Absent members. That motion is due to pass the Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 10 to 0. Humberg? All right, that file is out 10 to 0. Senator Umberg has stated he will not be able to attend today. We're going to move on to another bill, file item number 7, AB 1760 by Assemblymember Arambula, which will be presented by Assemblymember Solache.

Good morning Madam Chair and members I Brad Nelson who is the legislative and regulatory Specialist for the Dental Board of California The Board is proud to sponsor AB 1760 and would like to thank Assemblymember Arambula for his leadership on this important measure The Board's mission is to protect and promote the health and safety of California dental consumers. AB 1760 is a non-controversial, technical, and substantive cleanup bill that consolidates routine, but important, updates to the Dental Practice Act. It contains provisions approved by the Board in public meetings over the past year and a half to fix outdated language, resolve minor inconsistencies, and improve administrative efficiency. Key elements include technical clarifications to licensing pathways, updates to dental auxiliary training and standards, as well as other housekeeping changes needed to align statute with current regulatory practice. These fixes help the Board operate more effectively, reduce unnecessary delays, and maintain a high level of consumer protection. Lastly, I would like to specifically thank committee staff for their kind assistance and guidance in preparation for this meeting. Therefore, the Dental Board of California respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1760. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you madam chair assembly member Jessica close Thank you so much for your work and members of the committee for this opportunity to present a B 1637 today Thank you as well to the committee consultant staff and sponsor For their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill Trust is the foundation of patient care. Without it, diagnosis can be questioned, treatment decisions can be compromised, and ultimately lives can be put at risk. AB 1637, the Just What the Doctor Ordered Act, protects patients by ensuring that physicians are solely responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their medical records. Our physicians, doctors, and surgeons are experts. They create diagnoses, treatment plans, and notes that guide patient care. Yet under current law, anyone, including those who are not licensed physicians, can alter these records. This creates confusion, undermines accountability, and threatens patient safety. Accurate medical documentation is foundational to safe and effective patient care, and AB 1637 draws that clear line of responsibility. It ensures that physician-authored notes, diagnoses, and treatment plans remain just that, physician-authored. It ensures that these critical documents cannot be modified by anyone else other than the authoring physician We seen the consequences of failing to protect medical records A traveling physician in Kern County for example working with autistic children had their notes changed by the district supervisor not the treating physician These edits were made out of concern for the clinic's reputation, compromising patient care and trust. And with rapid expansion of the electronic health records, or EHR systems, the guardrails in which documentation is created, stored in access has become unclear. Though EHR has improved coordination and efficiency, it also puts patients at risk and creates uncertainty about who is responsible for the information, and hopefully AB 1637 will fix that. With me testifying in support of AB 1637, I have Dr. Melissa Aguirre, and for technical assistance, Gary Cooper with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, also known as UAPD. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker, you will also have only two minutes.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Do we have any me-tos? State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers, we're going to move on to members of the committee. Seeing none, I'm sorry, Senator Choi.

Thank you so much for your question, Senator. It's a really good one. Really asking who else, you know, who is also involved in patient care can add to the record. So we took some recent amendments that allow certain authorized individuals to make edits, including scribes, medical assistants, and other personnel acting under the delegated authority from the physician. So this allows that physicians who assume a care of the patient and supervising physicians who oversee trainees, for instance, can make appropriate additions or modifications. So we know and understand that there might be other personnel involved, but it ultimately…

Correct, correct. So ultimately, it's the physician's responsibility, and we already took some amendments to clarify some additional language because we know that, for instance, when you're treating a patient, there's multiple staff who are involved in that patient's care. So we were able to add some clarifying language.

And just to clarify and I'll turn to dr. Gary in a second this wouldn't um This would this would be about making edits to the actual physician's notes, not about restricting access.

Yeah, doctor may enter the record any time and make different edits or additional comments. There will be no problem, but none other than the... The doctor itself, who else will have access to that?

To the witness.

It's surprising to hear that, but your bill will tighten up the confidentiality of the patient record, only tightening the access to the patient record other than the primary doctor. I want to support that. That's important. Thank you.

Yeah. Before you leave the witness, please. Upon discovery of this negative action, is that the medical board will take action? Is that a misdemeanor that that individual will be facing? What action will be taken once this is discovered? So for this law, it's a misdemeanor.

Well, I can see the potential fraud in this, which I think would be obviously a misdemeanor. But I could also see if anyone in the medical field who does it for whatever reason should be facing the board. Yes, so if it's a physician, if it's another physician or someone who does it, then the medical board would be responsible, would be the entity that would take action in that situation.

Thank you to both senators for your thoughtful questions. And thank you to Dr. Aguirre for sharing your experience as well as to Mr. Cooper for sharing his work at UAPD. AB 1637, ultimately, it's about trust and it's about responsibility and it's ensuring patient care. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Thank you We have a motion by Senator Caballero Can we get a roll call Motion is due passed The Senate Appropriations Wahab

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1785. This bill simply allows for Sudafedrine medications to be sold by using an online retailer. Over the last 20 years, during the methamphetamine epidemic, most states added requirements around these common cold and allergy medicines, such as Sudafed and Claritin-D, to prevent them from being used to make methamphetamines. These products are required to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, and the amount sold is tracked to ensure that large quantities are not purchased by a single individual to later be made into an illegal drug. This bill will still keep those same guardrails in place as if it were purchased over the counter, but will expand to online sales of these medications. This will greatly improve access for individuals who are sick, elderly, or live in rural communities. With me today is Trent Smith with Consumer Healthcare Products Association. I would like to pass it to him for more information. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, opposition witnesses. Seeing none, can we move on to Me Too's? Seeing none, members of the committee. Seeing none, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Strickland has moved the bill. Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabriero? Aye. Cabriero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg all right and that bill is out Thank you assemblymember We gonna move on to file item number 9 to our very patient Assemblymember Aguiar Curry AB 1973 Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. In the years since the Dobbs decision, California has led the nation in protecting reproductive freedom. But even with those protections, gaps in access to care still remain. The reality is simple. We already have a workforce that is trained, is qualified, and ready to provide this care, but they are restricted in the ability to do so. Nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants, also known as advanced practice clinicians, or APCs, receive extensive education and training. They are already safely providing a range of reproductive health care services in California today. However, current law puts outdated limits on what these providers can do, regardless of their training or their patients' needs. These restrictions mean patients are turned away or forced to wait longer for care. And for patients, delays have real consequences. Longer travel, more time off work, higher costs, and even missing the window to receive care altogether. AB 1973 is about fixing these issues. It updates state law to allow APCs to practice to full extent of their training and proven competency. This bill is a common sense update, one that allows the state to fully use a skilled workforce that patients trust. At a time when access to health care is under pressure nationwide, we should be removing barriers, not maintaining outdated ones. AB 1973 ensures patients get timely care from providers who are already trained, competent, and serving their communities. With me today, I have Dr. Mastay, an OB-GYN with Planned Parenthood of Myra Monte, and Bethany Golden on behalf of Asmara Gabay, a certified nurse midwife, and Angela Pontus, who is available for technical questions. Two minutes each. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Nimi Maste, and I'm a board-certified OBGYN and complex family planning specialist. I serve as the Associate Medical Director of Complex Family Planning at Planned Parenthood Marmonte. In my role, I train and work collaboratively with advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners, PAs, and certified nurse midwives, to provide high-quality, evidence-based abortion care. I'm here in strong support of AB 1973. As you know, abortion care is safe and common. At Planned Parenthood Maramonte, our APCs have been trained in providing this care in California for many years. Our affiliate clinicians participated in a landmark research study that showed that trained APCs provide high-quality abortion care to patients with equivalent safety, competency, and patient satisfaction outcomes as their physician counterparts. Having personally trained many, many APCs, I can attest that they are essential to our state's reproductive health care system and provide excellent patient care. As California faces widespread OBGYN and primary care physician shortages, care provided by APCs is more critical than ever. Even with California's legal protections for abortion, many people in our state live in areas that still lack access to abortion care. The need is most acute in the lowest income and more rural areas within our state. Within California, our Planned Parenthood affiliate has nearly 30 health centers that stretch from the Bay Area through Bakersfield. Despite covering such a large part of our state we still see patients traveling up to three or more hours for abortion and miscarriage care due to the widening maternity and abortion care deserts we are facing This limited access to providers further exacerbates existing health care disparities People who already face barriers in accessing care are disproportionately harmed when abortion is out of their reach The current restrictions to the provision of procedural abortions by APCs creates artificial limits based on gestational duration and techniques that are not based in science. These restrictions impede patient access to evidence-based care provided by trained APCs. By removing these restrictions, AB 1973 would expand the capacity of existing abortion providers in the state and address disparities in abortion access. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Two minutes. Hi, my name is Bethany Golden. I'm a certified nurse midwife and the co-director of the Reproductive Health Service Corps. I'm going to be reading the testimony of my colleague, Esmara Gabry, who can't be with us today. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Esmara Gabry. I'm a certified nurse midwife with eight years of practice at San Francisco General Hospital an associate clinical professor at UCSF and founder of the Black Centering Group Prenatal Care and the Black Midwifery Fellowship in California, a $3.5 million state-funded program named in tribute to the black women who provided full-scope reproductive care, including abortion care, long before it was criminalized. I am here in strong support of AB 1973. Physicians have trained me and supportive physician colleagues have collaborated with me throughout my career that consultation is how midwifery works and it is how ab 1973 works i manage obstetric emergencies in my daily practice transfer and consultation protocols are not abstract to me the bill preserves them for care beyond the first trimester through black midwifery fellowship i provide abortion care up to 13 weeks and six days i have a clinical foundation to be trained beyond that but current law prohibits so i step back and my physician colleague takes over The training pathway exists, and the physicians willing to train me exist, but the statute is what stops me. Patients come to Midwives for continuity, for cultural concordance, for a relationship that spans pregnancies. If a patient I have cared for needs a procedural abortion, Beyond currently law forces me to hand her off to a stranger. Many of our patients do not need different providers. They need continuity, and the law says otherwise. California was the first to codify advanced practice abortion care in 2013. Because we were the first, the limits were narrow. Colorado, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Mexico have since safely allowed trained APCs to provide procedural abortion beyond the first trimester. California can do the same. The evidence shows that APCs provide abortion with safety and patient satisfaction equivalent to physicians. And this bill maintains rigorous in-person training, no online shortcuts, and the same physician consultation I've relied on. ABD aligns with the law with our current training. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Two minutes. Doctor and Senators, thank you. My name is Mindy Herzl with Sierra Pregnancy and Health. I'm a registered nurse certified in inpatient obstetrics, and I'm here in opposition of AB 1973. This bill would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform second and third trimester abortions, abortions, the most complex surgical procedures any of them would be permitted to perform by a wide margin. As a nurse, I have a moral and ethical obligation to advocate for my patients, not just those in my care, but any person whose health may be affected by the policies and laws that we make. In this case, that means women and their pre-born children. We know the babies won't survive these procedures, but the risks are serious enough that the woman may not either. Lawmakers also have an obligation to advocate on behalf of the people. Proponents say this bill addresses disparities in women's health care. Those disparities are often due to substandard care. While that can be attributed to many different reasons, the solution is not less qualified care. Placing women in the hands of providers without adequate training and experience for these high-risk procedures does not close the gap. It widens it. This bill does exactly what you say you're against. It creates a two-tiered system where the least experienced providers perform the highest risk procedures on those least able to advocate for themselves. This is not equity, it's not advocacy, and it directly contradicts the values this body claims to uphold. I urge a no vote respectfully. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition? You have two minutes. Good morning. My name is Dr. Vanson Wong. I am an OBGYN physician with 31 years of experience as a clinician and administrator, having been in charge of abortion services and an OBGYN department for the largest health care company here in Sacramento. I vehemently oppose AB 1973. It will endanger the lives and health of pregnant women throughout the state. state. APCs presently perform first trimester procedural abortions, and it is the first trimester abortions where a study did document equivalents in terms of safety for both APCs and physicians. However, a second trimester procedure is an entirely different one with higher risks of life-threatening complications such as hemorrhage, intestinal perforation, and sepsis. Therefore, any claims regarding that AB 1973 is safe is pure speculation. The qualifications and training of APCs in this bill are vague and lax. A physician's assistant, for example, with absolutely no experience in women's health would be eligible to provide abortions after a training program. A current provider of second trimester abortions can be the sole judge of the competency of a new abortion provider. This bill begs for a standardized pathway to ensure that all new practitioners are sufficiently trained and are competent abortionists. There is no quality review in this bill. If we don't collect statistics on complication rates, how will we know if AB 1973 has created a system of safety or one of danger? To summarize, AB 1973 is fundamentally flawed. There is no requirement for specialization in women's health. There is no standardized training required for APCs, and there is no monitoring of the outcomes for APCs. It is a recipe for disaster, injury, and death. Please do not pass this bill. Appreciate it. Do we have any Me Too's in support or opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California in support. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support. Thank you. Greg Burt with the California Family Council in strong opposition. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association with concerns and thank the author and staff for working with us Sumayana Har on behalf of the California Academia Physician Associates in support Kathy Mossberg on behalf of Essential Access Health in support. Sosin Madinat here on behalf of the California Nurse and Midwives Association, proud co-sponsor in support and also here to provide a courtesy of Me Too in support for the ACLU California action. Thank you. John Vogelsang, a retired board-certified OB-GYN in strong opposition secondary to patient safety. Brendan Rpicki on behalf of TEACH training and early abortion for comprehensive health care. We're a co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, We're going to move to members of the committee. Seeing Senator Caballero. Assemblymember, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Could you address the concerns that have been raised in regards to the standardized training and monitoring outcomes and those kinds of things? I mean, I think we all are concerned about safety. Safety. And so if you could address that, that would be appreciated. So the reality is APCs receive extensive training and are equipped to provide these procedures. And in fact, research shows that both APCs and physicians have comparable low complication rates. The medical community generally agrees that abortion safety is primarily tied to a timely access rather than the provider type. Nothing in this bill would allow an APC to do anything beyond their scope, training, or clinical competence. This is already existing law. The bill removes artificial legal barriers that prevent APCs from serving individual patient needs. And APCs would still be providing care that they would be trained to do as it goes forward. So there's nothing that's going to change from this law, just cleaning up something from an old bill as well. Any other member? I'll move the bill when the time's right. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do want to ask Assemblymember that there have been a lot of people that have reached out on this particular bill, raising concerns about safety in particular. I just want to make sure that we do have garden rails, that we are working with opposition to kind of address their concerns as it pertains to client safety. So I just want to highlight that. But with that, would you like to close? Yeah. Yes, I would. Absolutely. We're going to continue to work on this bill. There has been a couple of things that have come up, and we want to make sure that we get those addressed before moving forward. I think we need to be – obviously, safety is the foremost thing that we have to do. We absolutely share the goal of achieving and ensuring patient safety, strong coordination of care. We are continuing the conversations with stakeholders to clarify the process for complex cases or emergency situations. And it's at its core the bill is about aligning our laws with reality without a respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you I have a motion from Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Could we get a roll call please? Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Choi? No. Choi no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye. Adagin? Aye. Adagin aye. Cario? Aye. Carrier aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar aye. Nilo? Nilo, no. Smallwood, Cuevas? Aye Smallwood Cuevas aye Strickland No Strickland no Umberg That bill is out We appreciate you Thank you very much It's out 7-3. We're going to move on to file item 10 by Assemblymember Pellerin, AB-2025, followed by Assemblymember Pellerin again on AB-2697. Assemblymember, whenever you are ready. We're debating the order. Good morning. How are you? Good. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to ask the Chair for permission to display props, which I already have. It says wait for permission. Okay, existing law requires for real estate sales that digitally staged images be labeled and the original be made available to consumers. Today, I ask that you help me extend the same requirements to rental listings. Given the high competition in the rental market, it is not uncommon for renters to commit to a unit without visiting it first in person. So right here, I have a couple of screenshots of a Zillow listing for an apartment in Sacramento. At first glance, it may not appear that it has been staged using AI tools, but upon close inspection of the curtains and the angle of the floor, you can clearly see that these elements were added using these AI tools along with the rest of the furniture. And so when you compare the stage photo with the original photo, you'll see in that left-hand side, there's actually a pop-out that is completely obscured by the curtains in the stage photo. And if you look underneath the TV, there's a cabinet, and that's right close to the door to get in, and it's unlikely there really is enough space for furniture like that to be put in that location. So it raises the question whether that room could actually function with something in that position. Now, these might not be a deal breaker for a renter, but these facts about the property are only revealed because we have access to the original image. So AB 2025 prevents consumer harm by requiring that digitally altered images used in rental listing advertisement include a disclosure that the images have been altered using these AI tools and that the original photos be accessible to the renter for images that are posted online. The bill has no opposition and enjoyed enthusiastic bipartisan support in the Assembly. And my office is working closely with the California Apartment Association and Zillow to ensure that the language is implementable for their platforms. And I've certainly appreciated their collaboration. So with me to testify in support is Becca Kramer on behalf of Consumer Reports. Thank you. Two minutes. Thank you, Becca Kramer with Consumer Reports. We're proud to support AB 2025, which would put in place some common sense guidelines around the use of generative AI images in rental real estate listings. Generative AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can decrease staging costs for agents and landlords, but it also has the potential to be used to fool prospective renters about key features or problems with listings. Fake images can be a deceptive inducement wasting would-be tenants' time and money in visiting apartments they otherwise would have avoided if marketed honestly People moving from across the state or country may need to make actual decisions based on online listings and may be in for a nasty surprise when they show up and find a wholly different property than the one that they thought they were getting. The use of AI in rental listings, including deceptive AI, has exploded in recent months. Wired published an article called, quote, real estate is entering its AI slop era late last year, and other major outlets like Slate, Yahoo, and The Atlantic have also published such investigations. Popular real estate reddits are packed with complaints from consumers who had been duped by AI-generated images of rental listings. And even the National Association of Realtors published a story entitled Are You Catfishing Buyers with Picture-Perfect Real Estate Photos in Realtor News in February? AB 2025 does not prohibit the use of Gen AI in rental listings. Instead, if a landlord uses images that have been materially digitally altered, they merely need to first label the images as altered and second provide links to the original unaltered photos. The bill reasonably exempts minor alterations such as color balancing and cropping and only applies to images that materially change elements such as fixtures or utility poles outside the window. These basic rules would help create a more transparent marketplace for prospective renters and help honest landlords who don't. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to any other support witnesses. Look at this. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I just want to let you know we appreciate the bill and its direction. We're working with the author to make sure that there's clarification so that we can implement it correctly and give proper advice. So thank you very much. Great. Thank you. We're going to move on to opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we're going to move on to me-tos. Seeing none, Senator Archuleta. Yes, thank you. As a licensed real estate broker and a member of the California Association of Realtors, I back this bill. I think it's a great bill, and I think it's a consumer-oriented bill. And I can see why everyone is so excited about it, because it's clarity. All of us who have friends, relatives that are renting, they want to be able to know exactly what they're getting. And so I think this is fantastic, and I approve it, and I will move the bill. Thank you. We have Senator Nilo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I'm going to appear to be policy-wise schizophrenic. And let me explain, because I opposed your bill last year, AB 723, I think it was, largely because there's already laws against misrepresentation, and I thought it was redundant. I've changed my mind. Hey. I think I'm allowed to do that. Yes, you are. And I just want to explain that if it wasn't happening, there wouldn't be a need for it, number one. Number two, it does seem logically transparent to essentially we're giving owners of properties the leeway to make their property look better digitally enhanced, but to show that they are indeed doing that by the alternative pictures. and also with discussions of my staff, who is highly encouraged to tell me when they disagree with me that they disagree with me and that is very helpful. So I'm going to be supporting the bill this time and I just want to make it clear I'm not schizophrenic. I've changed my mind. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. We have a motion. I don't see any other senators speaking. Would you like to close? Certainly a picture is worth a thousand words. I've got two of them and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Genuinely appreciate this bill. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Can we get a roll call, please? That bill is out. Eight to one. We're going to move on to file item number 11, AB 2697. Again, Assemblymember Pellerin. Thank you so much, Chair and members. Under current regulations, licensed cannabis retailers can offer curbside pickup as a remnant of the COVID pandemic adaptations. Despite this, licensed retailers generally cannot provide that same service to customers who are sitting in their car at a drive-thru window. AB 2697 addresses this regulatory inconsistency by allowing drive-thru cannabis sales subject to local jurisdictions approval. Restrictions in the bill provide that these sales be done through a fixed-pane security window and security drawer and available for walk-in storefronts only. AB 2697 will expand access to legal cannabis products while strengthening the legal market's ability to compete with the illicit market. And with me, testifying in support are Annie Aubrey, representing Chucks Wellness, a small independent retailer, and Amy O'Gorman Jenkins, representing the California Cannabis Operators Association. Thank you. Hi, members. Members, my name is Yanni Aubrey. I'm the owner and operator of Chex Wellness Center in Placerville, a small independent retail dispensary. I'm here today in support of AB 2697, which proposes a modest but important improvement to cannabis retail operations through the lens of both safety and consumer access. At its core, this bill is about improving access. A significant portion of our customers rely on cannabis as medicine, including seniors, veterans, and individuals living with chronic conditions that affect mobility. exactly the population this regulated system is meant to serve. For many, even simple tasks like exiting a vehicle or navigating a retail space can be physically difficult or prohibitive. We see this multiple times a day when our staff will assist customers into the store, which highlights a clear and ongoing gap in accessibility. A drive-thru option removes that barrier, allowing patients and consumers to access what they need in a way that is dignified and consistent with their health needs. It also helps prevent avoidable situations such as leaving pets in hot cars or requiring customers who may be unwell to enter an enclosed space, situations that create unnecessary risk and discomfort for both customers and staff. A drive-thru model addresses this gap in a controlled, compliant manner. It reduces physical barriers, supports ADA-conscious principles, and creates a more inclusive retail environment. Without changing who has access, only how that access is provided. Additionally and equally as important improving access through regulated channels helps strengthen legal market When access is easier and more accommodating consumers are more likely to choose licensed retailers over illicit or unregulated alternatives This supports compliance and advances the broader goals of California's cannabis framework. This is not an expansion of access. It's an improvement in how safe, regulated access is delivered. It's a practical, common-sense solution that ensures the system works for the people it was designed to serve. Thank you for your time and support for AB 2697. Yes, two minutes. Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Amy O'Gorman-Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, we represent 500 licensed operators. You've just heard testimony around the patient access piece, and I want to briefly speak to some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the market integrity issues that haven't yet been covered. So really, this is about operational flexibility within a highly regulated system. It does not expand who can access cannabis as already articulated. It just allows retailers with local approval to serve existing patients and customers in a more efficient manner. And importantly, this bill may actually improve safety. Today, curbside transactions are already permitted. This means employees are regularly required to leave a secured premises while carrying product and at times cash into parking lots. AB 2697 provides an additional mechanism to attain product but requires a fixed, secure transaction point, keeping employees inside and reducing exposure to theft. On ID verification, nothing changes. The same strict age verification requirements apply. On law enforcement visibility, there is none today inside dispensaries, nor is it required. And finally, and most importantly, on local control. The bill fully preserves it. No jurisdiction is required to allow drive-through operations unless locally improved. AB 2697 is a modest, practical update that improves safety, supports regulated businesses, and better serves consumers without compromising any of the safeguards this legislature has already put in place. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers in respectful opposition to the bill, which would permit cannabis users to avoid entering a cannabis dispensary where they must present ID and have their ID confirmed in proper lighting. By allowing customers to remain in their vehicles throughout the purchase process, the bill will result in less effective enforcement of our cannabis control laws. As you know, our state has not enacted a similar law permitting drive-through window liquor sales, and for the same safety-related reasons. This bill prioritizes speed of sale over public safety while undermining current safeguards designed to prevent illegal sales and protect public safety. Potential harms caused by this bill include limited ability to verify properly the identification of the person, reduced capacity to detect signs of current intoxication, and increased risk of illegal sales to unauthorized persons. In-car purchases could also enable rapid commission of escape and robbery incidents, although that's less of a likely concern, but it is a real one. The legislature has advanced numerous bills this year to address the skyrocketing increase in DUI collisions and deaths plaguing our state. Unfortunately, this bill would work against those efforts by encouraging cannabis sales to drivers directly in their vehicles. If approved, however, the bill should at least be limited to handicapped drivers. For these reasons we remain opposed to the bill and respectfully request a no vote Thank you Do we have any other opposition witnesses Seeing none we going to move on to Me Too both in support and opposition Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. Zoe Schreiber here for California Cannabis Industry Association and Highlands Dispensary in Livermore in strong support. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Sam Rodriguez on behalf of Good Farmers, Great Neighbors based in Santa Barbara County and Nug Dispensaries of Northern California in strong support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Balthazar Cornejo here with Brownstein on behalf of Kiva Confections in support. Thank you. Do we have any other Me Too's? Seeing none, members on the committee, Senator Urchuleta, followed by Senator Nemo. Sorry, Senator Arrigin. Sorry. Thank you. I just want to follow up on a comment that was made by the opposition witness. My understanding is that all the existing requirements for adult use would still apply for someone who purchases cannabis products through a drive-thru window. You'd have to present your identification to verify that you meet the age requirements, correct? Correct, correct. And it applies to the curbside as well. Yes, correct. Same exact requirement. The implication was that retailers would not be complying with those requirements, and there's already a curbside process, as you described. So I just want to get that clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Nilo, again, apologies. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the significant frustrations I've had since I've been back here for my second visit with the legislature is voting for all sorts of proposals in the cannabis industry, recognizing that it is the law and it's competing unfairly against the illicit market and helping it to survive as was demonstrated by the will of the people. I oppose that proposition because I oppose the legalization of marijuana, but more importantly, the proposition was written to avoid any opposition. It was written to please everybody. And when you do that, you're going to end up with a dysfunctional policy that is bound for unintended consequences, plus it sets up a legal portion of an industry competing with a well-established and strong illegal industry without any legitimate way to combat that illicit market, meaning we do not apply the resources to enforce that. I think it's time to assess the effects, the significant unintended consequences of the legalization of marijuana, which has not just happened in California, but in other states too. Just two examples, and if I have time, I could come up, frankly, with dozens of others, I'm quite sure. But a Mass General Brigham that a health organization in Massachusetts a study found an almost four increase in cannabis use among 12 to 17 quote presenting for a psychiatric emergency end quote since 2018 Fourfold increase Another study shows a clear age-related association between cannabis use disorder and subsequent psychiatric disorders diagnoses. These are really serious problems that have created, have been created, specifically because of the legalization of marijuana. It doesn't even enter the area of increased traffic accidents and the like. Now, we can't change it without going back to the people, but I think we should have a serious discussion, a serious analysis of the obvious, I'm going to say unintended negative consequences. I don't think that the writers of the proposition cared about. I think these could have been predicted. They just wanted recreational use to be legalized. And, again, we've seen it across the country. We're even seeing our current president now advocating that by downplaying the classification of marijuana at the federal level. we have seen significant negative consequences of this legalization both here as well as in other states. And I think it's time for us to have a serious analysis of that and whether or not we want to develop a proposition to go back to the voters and either reverse it or somehow reform it so that we don't continually deal with the problems that we do. I will be opposed to this particular bill, not opposed to the other two, but these comments relate to this bill and the next two. Thank you. Do we have any other comments? Senator Smallwood-Quins. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I agree that our legal market, our dispensary and small business owners are really having to trudge uphill, uphill against a ridiculous amount of taxes and fees that no other industry has to sustain. And so I absolutely agree we need to do more to deal with the illicit market, but we also have to do everything that we can to make sure that this industry, which is one of the few industries that actually had an increase in employment in terms of bringing on a new workforce, in terms of expanding opportunities for communities to earn unionized wages. And so I think we, I want to support this bill. I'm happy to move it when it's forward. But I think we need to really see the value of this industry. And as California, we need to stand up and support these business owners as much as possible. And with that, I will be supporting the bill today. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Assemblymember, would you like to close? Well, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I, too, and the dispensary owners have really great security around their facilities and selling to children and getting it into the hands of the children is something they are very much opposed to as well. And anything we can do to continue to have the legal industry, we want to do. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Smallwood Cuevas moves the bill. Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab?

Wahab, aye. Choi?

Choi, aye. Archuleta?

Archuleta, aye. Adegeen?

Adegeen, aye. Cabriero?

Cabriero, aye. Grayson?

Grayson, aye. Menjivar?

Menjivar, no. Nilo?

Nilo, no. Smallwood Cuevas?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland?

Strickland, no. 7 to 3 that bills out. Thank you so much. All right, we're going to move on to file item 12 and 13. These are two final bills by assembly member Irwin. We're going to start with file item number 12, AB 2249. Assembly member, whenever you're ready.

Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Chris Applegate with the California State Auditor's Office. We don't have a position on AB 2249, but can report that it represents implementation of a few of our recommendations. Last August, we issued a report relating to cannabis packaging and advertising being attractive to youth. We found that while these determinations may be subjective, there were many cases where we disagreed with DCC's determinations that packaging was not attractive to youth pursuant to their existing regulations. This included situations where packaging included cartoon smiley faces and cartoon images of foods like cookies and ice cream cones. DCC's regulations, while prohibiting cartoon images, don't define that term, and DCC staff informed us that the regulations are subjective and that they wish they more clearly defined packaging that is attractive to children. We therefore recommended the legislature create statutory language further defining these elements that being prohibited, which this bill implements by including detailed definitions for cartoons as well as images of humans, animals, fruits, and bubble or other attractive fonts. Additionally, given the inconsistent nature of enforcement and subjectivity we saw, we also recommended that DCC complete implementation of a rubric for determining whether products violate these regulations and make that available to the public and to licensees, which this bill also implements by requiring the adoption of this rubric and regulation by July 1st of 2027. And finally, despite existing regulations, we saw many packages still contain images and elements that could be attractive to children. We noted that Oregon has a system that allows licensees to submit their proposed product packaging to the state and for a fee have it evaluated for compliance with existing laws and regulations. For those who don't voluntarily engage in this review, they're required to use the state's pre-approved plain packaging. We believe that this type of system was worth the state consideration and therefore recommended that the legislature consider a similar system for pre which this bill does partially implement by requiring DCC to develop a process allowing a fee submittal of proposed packaging for review to DCC We believe the language in this bill implementing several of these recommendations can address many of the findings from our audit report and improve the process and I happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Mark Smith, on behalf of Origins Council, representing small and independent cannabis farmers across rural California, we want to be clear. We support the goal of the bill. The state auditor identified real problems, and they deserve a real response. We also appreciate recent amendments to the bill, which we believe are a significant step in the right direction to precisely define imagery which is truly attractive to children. We remain concerned, however, that other parts of this bill continue to adopt a categorical approach, which would sweep up a wide range of appropriate and non-problematic design elements. The most significant of these are proposed categorical prohibitions on images of fruits, vegetables, and mythical creatures. For small cannabis farmers, many of whom grow diversified organic crops in addition to small-scale cannabis gardens, agricultural imagery of fruits and vegetables are a core part of their identity and brand. Our letter includes several examples of produce, including carrots, squash, grapes, peaches, and beets, currently being used in cannabis packaging, branding, and marketing in ways that are not remotely targeted towards children and accurately reflect the farm on which they're grown. For small operators, this is not abstract. Their branding reflects who they are and what they grow. It's often the only thing that differentiates them from larger competitors and from the illicit market. And the harder truth is that most businesses don't have capital to rebrand. This bill would wipe out years of investment overnight and permanently affect the ability of small operators to compete in the legal market. We believe recent amendments to 2249 offer a way forward. The updated definition of cartoon in the bill thoughtfully does not categorically prohibit whole design categories, but instead points to specific features that can be used in ways that are attractive to children. Notably, however, this nuanced approach is not applied to the bill's current categorical prohibitions on fruits, vegetables, or mythical creatures. There is a significant difference between a cartoon image of a unicorn or a fairy. Thank you.

We remain in opposition to the bill and ask for further amendments to remove our opposition. Thank you.

I will be quick. Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Zoe Schreiber. I'm the vice president of California Cannabis Industry Association in here to opposition of AB 224. We appreciate Assembly members Irwin's collaboration to date and meaningful progress reflected in the bill, and we hope continued dialogue resolve a few outstanding concerns before the bill progresses. CCIA shares the Origins Council's concerns on fruits, vegetables, and mythical creatures. We also want to highlight a concern CCIA has raised throughout the process that deserves the committee's attention. Section 1 subdivision E3 includes language broad enough to effectively prohibit a wide range of leading edible products. This language holds licensed cannabis businesses accountable for what businesses in the non-cannabis food industry choose to market to children. Licensees' compliance depend not on their own conduct, but the marketing decisions of unrelated food products. That is not a standard. That is a moving target. We look forward to continued engagement with the author's office and welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns directly.

Thank you Good afternoon Madam Chair members Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry both in strong support Thank you Thank you Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry both in strong support Thank you Thank you

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, can we move to committee members? Committee members? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Do I have a motion?

Senator Strickland moves the bill. Can I get a roll call, please? Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee.

Wahab, aye.

Archuleta?

Adeguin?

Caballero?

Grayson, aye.

Nilo, aye.

Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye.

Aye. Strickland, aye.

promise of proposition 64 was creating a legal cannabis market where products are sold safely responsibly and transparently since its passage California has continued refining our laws on cannabis to ensure that we regulate products in a way that protects public health and consumers safety but one of the clearest gaps in that framework, as shown in the state auditor's report on Department of Cannabis Control, is how we regulate cannabis beverages. Under current law, cannabis edibles must be delineated into standard serving sizes so that consumers can measure and consume them responsibly. There is no similar requirement for cannabis beverages, which can be sold in containers with 100 milligrams of THC when the serving size is 10 milligrams, with no way to know how large a serving size is. These beverages are frequently packaged and marketed like ordinary drinks with names like root beer and high soda pop on the beverage container. Unlike with a brownie or gummy, though, consumers may not realize they are ingesting multiple servings of THC in one sitting. This creates an increased risk of accidental overconsumption. The consequences of THC poisoning can be serious, including paranoia, vomiting, panic attacks, and more. AB 2532 will establish reasonable safeguards on the sale and marketing of cannabis beverages to ensure that consumers are provided products that they can use responsibly. Consumers should not have to guess to determine how much cannabis they are drinking from a single beverage container. With me to testify today is Chris Applegate from the State Auditor's Office, testifying about the audit itself.

Chair and members, Chris Applegate with the State Auditor's Office. We, again, don't have a position on AB 2532, but can report that it appears to address one of our legislative recommendations. Again, one aspect of the findings of our report related to serving sizes for cannabis beverages. Specifically, we saw several products from four-ounce energy drinks to 16-ounce root beer cans that contained 100 milligrams of THC, which represents 10 servings of 10 milligrams of THC. However, these containers contain nothing that would allow a consumer to measure out a single serving size to safely consume. Even when we did find a can that contained lines to mark 10 servings, the can was opaque and therefore did not allow the consumer to actually utilize those measurement marks. As a result of these findings and to ensure that beverage consumers can properly identify a single serving, we recommended that the legislature consider either requiring easy understanding of measurement sizes, such as by requiring included measuring devices, as we saw in Washington State, or to establish a cap on the amount of THC in one cannabis beverage container to 10 milligrams or one serving. This bill would address the recommendation and the findings that led to it by requiring for cannabis beverages that a container contain unobstructed and conspicuous lines delineating individual serving or portion sizes as well as a requirement that a consumer be offered a measuring instrument that allows them to measure a single serving for consumption This would be an improvement over a current process and helps to mitigate the concerns that we saw in existing containers throughout our audit. Happy to answer any questions about the report. Thank you.

Senator Strickland moves the bill.

Just appreciate all the stakeholder input. Thank you.

Wahab? Aye.

Choi? Aye.

Archuleta? Aye.

Adeguin? Aye.

Caballero? Aye.

Grayson? Aye.

Minjivar? Aye.

Nilo? Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.

Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Amber? 10-0. 10-0. That bill is out. We are going to adjourn our meeting. Again, appreciate everybody working together.