Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

One, two, three. All right. There we go. Good afternoon, everybody. Witnesses get to testify in person or by phone here in this Committee. The number to call is 877-692-8957. The access code is a bunch of numbers: 18501100. Again, the access code is 18501100. This number can be found on the Committee's website and is displayed on your screens.

For those calling in, please mute yourselves while in the queue to eliminate background noise. For each bill heard today, there will be an opportunity for two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition each to provide two minutes of testimony. For additional witnesses calling in, you'll be placed in a queue until your opportunity to provide public comment.

Support and opposition will be alternated, and when it's your opportunity to provide comment, press one then zero and unmute. Please be brief, limiting your comments to your name, organization, and position. With that, we'll begin and ask for the sergeant to please call the absent Members. Noticing the absence of a quorum, we're going to begin as a Subcommittee, and we'll go ahead and begin with Assembly Member Haney.

Haney. We have AB 374 to be heard. You may begin when you're ready, sir.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and let me first say--because I see my Republican colleagues are here--this is an anti-illicit drug market bill, a pro-small business bill, and a pro-local autonomy bill. I want to first start by accepting the Committee's technical amendments and thank you for your suggestions on how to improve this legislation. AB 374 legalizes cannabis cafes by allowing the sale of non-cannabis foods and soft drinks at licensed cannabis retailers.

It also allows cannabis retailers to hold live performances at their venues. The cannabis industry is struggling. Issues like an oversaturation, high taxes, and a still thriving black market are hurting cannabis businesses who follow the rules and pay taxes. In 2020, California's legal cannabis sales reached four billion, while the state's illicit market sales were projected to have exceeded over eight billion. Legal businesses that are following the rules and paying taxes are being crowded out by illegal businesses who don't follow the rules.

Unfortunately, because of how our existing cannabis laws were written, these small businesses can't do what a typical small business would do, which is diversify to stay competitive. Our office was approached by law-following cannabis businesses and asked for help in clarifying California law to allow these businesses to sell things other than cannabis. Ironically, how the law is written now, it requires cannabis shops to sell only drugs.

We believe that if we want to move from that model and sell muffins and coffee, for example, they should be allowed to do that. California and the Netherlands are both famous worldwide for being early pioneers of cannabis, but took very different routes. The Netherlands coffee shop model, in contrast to California's dispensary model, encourages the social acceptable use and safe use and legal use of cannabis and has been incredibly successful. While consuming cannabis on site at cannabis retailers is technically legal in California, currently, selling non-cannabis infused products is not.

AB 374 will allow small business cannabis retailers to diversify their business and move away from the limiting dispensary model. It will bring revenue to our economy, create jobs, and combat the illicit market. I will also note that this is something that local jurisdictions will decide to opt into if they want to. It doesn't apply across the board automatically to every retailer. Here to testify with me in support today is Ben Bleiman from the California Nightlife Association and Jerred Kiloh from the United Cannabis Business Association.

Hello. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Ben Bleiman, and I'm Chairman of California Nightlife Association, also known as CAL NIGHT. We are a statewide nightlife and culture advocacy organization. We have members from San Diego all the way to Sacramento and pretty much everything in between and we're growing. We're really excited about this bill. First of all, a quick note about why lounges exist.

We enshrine the right both to purchase legal cannabis in the state, but we also enshrine the right for a place for people to consume it, and that's really important because there's really almost nowhere that you can legally consume cannabis. For example, in San Francisco, the only place you can legally consume cannabis outside of a lounge is in a home that you personally own, which makes consumption a big problem and legally doing it so almost impossible in many cases.

So the issue with that as well, is that the enforcement of illegal consumption has often been weighted on communities that are more disadvantaged than others, and so we're trying to give people an opportunity to consume legally legal-bought products and not black market products. So lounges are really important, but dispensaries themselves and their lounges are not doing well right now.

It's not an exaggeration to say that many, if not most, are teetering on death's doorstep right now, and this is mostly due to the federal tax burden and the out of control black market, which undercuts their businesses at every single entry point that we have. So by adding the ability to sell things like pastries and coffee to our lounges, it will offer a huge lifeline to our lounges to make them more attractive places to legally consume.

And I want to just mention that these lounges have state of the art ventilation systems in them, so they're purposely made to be a place where you can consume without there being--minimizing secondhand smoke as much as possible, which is not the case in many cases where people are illegally consuming, for example, in a home where there might be children, a car, et cetera. Is this going to solve all of our retailers' problems? Absolutely not. But is it a step in the right direction and a big one?

There's no question around that. This has gotten an incredible amount of press, and it's gotten incredible amount of support from retailers and from citizens that I've spoken to in San Francisco, and the reason is, it's really great. It's an awesome piece of legislation; it'll really help. That's it. I encourage you to please vote in support of this.

Thank you, everyone, for having us today. It's really important for us to be able to have this conversation as we try to normalize cannabis consumption and the legal use of it. Tourism, and having a safe and social place to consume and interact with like-minded people, it's the same reason why people go to a bar and pay 12 dollars for a drink. They could go home and buy a bottle of vodka and sit by themselves, but they pay the added cost to socialize.

But what we're asking people to do in cannabis is take away that social aspect and go home and do it by themselves. If we don't normalize the legal consumption of cannabis, then the unregulated portion of this industry will. The speakeasies of the world will dominate the entertainment sector of cannabis, and we will continue to lose customers to illegal products and the health concerns that that will allow. The entire regulated cannabis industry is hurting and fighting to hold on to customers.

And these are the unregulated events and sellers that undermine our taxing system. This allows the communal nature of cannabis consumption and the natural side effects of needing food and water after you consume cannabis. The culture of California cannabis is something tourists are traveling here to experience, and that full immersion into the culture is a major reason for cannabis tourism. We're seeing countries like Thailand that are embracing the cannabis tourists with lounges and entertainment.

Only years ago, Thailand would have very punitive consequences for cannabis use and possession. The world is adopting to the new view of cannabis. You know what you are getting when you enter into a consumption lounge. It's not like when you go into a hookah lounge, a cigar lounge, you ask, 'why are people smoking here?' It's pretty obvious that cannabis lounges have some of the most advanced ventilation systems. It's part of our normal licensing system, so it's part of our regulatory system already.

So we're all looking to mitigate the harm of our customers and our employees, and so this is just one way we've already built it into regulations. We're kind of pushing people to hide in the shadows, to consume legal products that they just purchase, and they want to eat a sandwich and have a consumption and have a cannabis beverage with their sandwich. Feels like we're pushing that away, and we don't really understand why it's happening.

Locals and tourists alike need this safe space, and California needs the allowance to show the support of these legally obtained products and environment that supports its consumption. Thank you for your opportunity to talk today.

All right, thank you very much. Now, the witnesses--before you do that, let's see. Do we have anybody in the room that wants to express their support for this measure?

Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and SPARC in support.

Thank you.

Talia D'Amato, on behalf of California NORML, also in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll now go to the two witnesses in opposition. Two minutes apiece, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. I'm Tim Gibbs at the American Lung Association, and as a key player in the battles that took place in the 1990s to prohibit smoking in the workplace and in particular bars and restaurant, we must again stand up in defense of California workers being forced to be exposed to toxic chemicals and carcinogens in the workplace. This bill would represent a giant step backwards for worker safety.

It would allow for a cannabis licensee to also sell food and beverages, as well as tickets for live music events. This would be adding an entire new layer of employees to be exposed to toxins in the workplace. And let's be clear: secondhand marijuana smoke, much like tobacco smoke, is dangerous. They always say smoke is smoke, and anytime it enters your lung, that's bad for you. Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same cancer-causing substances and toxic chemicals as secondhand tobacco smoke.

Some of the known carcinogens and toxins present in marijuana smoke include acetaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, formaldehyde, and the list goes on and on. So turning a cannabis business into a live music venue, restaurant, or coffee shop would put kitchen staff, servers, baristas, performers, artists, and many other types of workers at risk. You really want to go back to the days of forcing workers to serve food and drink in smoke filled rooms?

The stated intent of the bill is to provide cannabis businesses with other economic opportunities, but that should not come at the expense of worker safety. We urge a no vote on this legislation.

You may proceed, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm Dr. Lynn Silver, pediatrician, Senior Advisor at the Public Health Institute, professor at UCSF, and a member of the Department of Health Care Services Prop 64 Advisory Committee. Smoke-free air is one of the great accomplishments of the last century, preventing countless deaths from heart disease and cancer, and transforming social moors around smoking. Unlike my generation, my children and yours have grown up in smoke-free environments, our workers safe from smoke exposure. California was a pioneer.

AB 374 will fundamentally undermine that progress by exposing workers, including pregnant women, to harmful secondhand cannabis smoke, bringing back smoke-filled bars and restaurants, increasing motor vehicle collisions, and it will create an undesirable burden for governmental operations, including emergency medical services, highway patrol, local police, and health providers. The scientific evidence is crystal clear. While it is different, cannabis smoke is not safer than tobacco smoke.

Just one minute of cannabis smoke impairs the function of the heart endothelium for at least 90 minutes more than tobacco smoke. It affects placental function. Particulate matter from a joint is four and a half times that of a cigarette. UCSF colleagues studied even a vaping-only onsite consumption lounge and found that particulate matter was 28-fold what it was, why closed when it opened. And we know that indoor engineering techniques do not correct for secondhand smoke.

Even amongst police who worked only outside at concerts with cannabis events, one-third tested positive for cannabis afterwards, and a quarter to a third reported symptoms. Cannabis restaurants and bars will increase drug driving as patrons head home. Not replacing alcohol, just layering on a new problem. Even Amsterdam is now pulling back on its iconic cannabis cafes. Ending criminalization and stigma and creating legal access are positive, but going backwards on smoke-free air is not.

Nor can our state solve the problem of vast overproduction in the licit or illicit market by opening cannabis cafes. Please treat this with the caution it merits, secure our state's longstanding commitment to smoke-free air, and protect future generations. We ask for your nay vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses that want to express their opposition in the room?

Hello, Chair and Members. Autumn Ogden-Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also in opposition.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan, on behalf of the American Heart Association, also in opposition.

Thank you. Moderator, we'd also like to allow the people on the phones to express either their support or their opposition at this time.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you have support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero on your telephone keypad. We will go to line number 25. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Cvetko in support of this bill, representing Angeles Emeralds and the United Cannabis Business Association.

We will now go to line number eight. Please go ahead.

My name is Gregory Lefian with the Long Beach Collective Association, and we are in support of the bill.

One moment. We have a few others that have now queued up. We will now go to line number 15. Please go ahead.

Yes, hello. My name is Luis Rivera with Social Equity LA, and we are in favor of AB 374, the cannabis consumption bill. Thank you very much.

Our last caller in queue is number 23, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Armen Paronyan. I'm calling on behalf of the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance Network, and we are in support of this bill. Thank you.

We have no further callers in the queue.

Okay, thank you very much. Now we'll come back to the Committee. Anybody have any remarks they would like to express? Any questions for the author? I would just like to say that currently the illicit market is really, really dominating the cannabis culture right now, and the legal market needs help. It needs help to combat the illicit market dominance.

And I believe that this is one of the tools that they have to actually compete and to actually allow consumption in a legal way because without it, you're going to have people consuming--more likely to be consuming in areas they should not be consuming. So I think that this actually encourages compliance. I'm not a big fan of cannabis because I'll never use it unless I need it medically.

But the voters have weighed in on this, and it's a legal product, and we need to support the legal disbursement of this product because the illicit market is very toxic and very, very hurtful to our society in every way. So it will be something I'm happy to support at this particular time, and if we have no other remarks--ah. Mr. Villapudua, go ahead.

I do. Can you hear me? Yeah. If you can elaborate a little bit on the local control, how does that work?

So any jurisdiction that currently allows for cannabis retailers, they would then have the option to create a regulatory structure to allow for non-cannabis food and drinks. Right now, state law prohibits any locality from doing that even if they wanted to. So they could still allow it or prohibit it at a local level if they wanted to, but this law would lift the prohibition at the state level that currently exists.

So some jurisdictions, we know San Francisco, West Hollywood, are chomping at the bit to do this, and some may not do it, which is totally fine, and some may put additional restrictions on these cannabis lounges. One of the things that exists in San Francisco, where we have 18 of these lounges, is the workers are separated from where the lounges are. There's very strict rules on ventilation.

There's a lot of things in that respect that localities could put in place, but all this would do is lift the state prohibition, give localities that already allow cannabis retailers and lounges the option to also allow them, with local rules and regulations, to serve food and drinks.

It lifts it up--the locals would have to kind of adjust their own rules, right?

It doesn't automatically allow retailers to have lounges or serve food, but it allows a locality that option if they want to provide it for the cannabis retailers in their jurisdiction.

Good. Yeah because I know it was brought up, like, bars and stuff, and most people have, if they're going to smoke, they go outside, right? There's a designated area. I'm assuming that that's kind of what the locals will have to come up with, their own rules and regulations.

There are rules that relate to cannabis lounges, and our current state law allows for cannabis lounges, and there are some regulations around that. They can be strengthened at the local level, and one possible thing is to have some of that area be explicitly outdoors or other types of ventilation systems. Again, throughout our state, there are cannabis lounges that are already allowed. They're not allowed to serve anything but cannabis products, which doesn't make any sense and is hurting them. And this would provide an option for those businesses, but also for those localities that want to allow this in their communities. It doesn't require them to.

Yeah. Well I want to thank you for bringing this up. The dispensaries or the folks that are in this arena have been hurting, and it's been tough on them, especially if they have to play not like double or triple tax. They're barely surviving, and they're really trying to do what's right, and the black market is still killing the industry, and here you are trying to do something that's right for our business. So I will be moving this bill too.

Thank you.

Or second it.

We can't take any motions at this time because we're not at full Committee, but Mr. Jones-Sawyer do you have a question?

No, I didn't have a question. I just wanted, really just a comment. As someone who was here at the original development of the first loss for cannabis here in California, and someone that considered himself as one of the founding fathers of cannabis in California, one of the reasons that we were able to move so quickly to get the adult use legalized in the state is because we had regulations.

When I got here in 2012, we had gone like nine years or so after we approved medical cannabis that we didn't have any framework for how to use it. And it was almost like the wild, wild west. Just about anybody could get a cannabis card. Almost everybody had glaucoma or a knee injury or a back injury, and it was just a little, very chaotic.

This is why this is so important, that as we move forward and as this industry matures, every step of the way--and I want to thank you, Mr. Haney, for doing this--that every step of the way that we have regulation. I strongly believe that not only for it to grow, but to make sure it grows in a safe and sanitary way, is that we insist that there's regulations around the use of it, and we never back off from it.

And so I want to commend you because it's not always easy to come up with cannabis regulations, and I can tell you because I went through a lot of that, and so I commend you, for one, taking on the task, but most important, I think the public needs to know that the Legislature takes this very seriously, and that it's so important that we allow the locals to work with us to make something that works for them and in their area and what their residents want.

But we also want to make sure that it doesn't get stymied by others who may not understand that the future is here, the future is now, and the future is moving forward. And so definitely voting for it, and definitely, if you want some historical discussions about how it's gone through, and even with the pitfalls and some of the successes, I'm here at your disposal.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from the Committee? Assembly Member Haney, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your comments as well and for your leadership and to all of you for this Committee's leadership to try to make sure that now that California has adopted adult use, that we can make it work, that we can support our small businesses, that we can do it in a healthy way that supports safety and public health and the legal industry, and that's what this bill is intended to do. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the right time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to start by accepting committee amendments listed in the analysis. Today I am presenting AB 389, a bill that would grant the Native American Heritage Commission the ability to enter into closed session when discussing sensitive records.

All right. Well, as soon as we're about two shy of having a full Committee. So, when we are able to assemble here as a full Committee, we'll be happy to take your measure up.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Ramos, AB 389. Any witnesses that are here may come and join.

Additionally, this Bill would ask for coroners in the state to have a policy when dealing with Native American remains that are inadvertent discovery. The Heritage Commission, created 1976, was established as the primary government agency responsible for identifying and cataloging Native American cultural resources.

I have served on this Commission and as its chair, I served on the Commission from 2007 to 2018.

While the responsibilities have changed and shifted, today the Commission provides protection to Native American human burials, skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction, and serves as a major component on repatriation of Native American remains that still, in the year 2023, have not been returned to California's First People.

Museums, UCs, and a current audit on the Cal State system has identified over 500,000 remains that still need to be repatriated back to California's First People. This Bill will start that work that would allow the Native American Heritage Commission the ability to address sensitive issues and discussions in closed session.

This Bill would allow for the Commission to enter into closed session during a consultation, by the Commission on Genealogical Records or cultural affiliation of tribal Members. With me to testify in support on this Bill is Chairman Bo Mazzetti of the Rincon tribal government and Frank Molina on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

Chairman Members of the Committee. My name is Bo Mazzetti, Chairman of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. I was part of creating the Heritage Commission 1975 and 76, so I'm well aware of the intent. And again, I want to thank the Assembly Member for taking on this issue.

It's long overdue that there needs to be closed sessions when we talk about our private locations of our people and different cultural aspects that are not necessarily for public. So this is a major step forward. We also, and I again thank the Assembly Member for opening up dialogue, which he is open to address some other additional amendments.

One of the unintended consequences of the Commission is they set up a list. Not quite sure how people get on that list, but then what happens is these various groups say they're state recognized, and I need to make sure that that's clear. There is no state recognition of tribes. That's a federal procedure. So what happens?

These folks are also involved with water rights, these non-groups. When you have a true government to government consultation, that's a formal tribal government which is only recognized by federal law, that's consultation, government to government consultation.

But again, I applaud the Assembly Member because we're open to discuss these items, but they need to be addressed. What he's done here is a very good start, and I hope you will move this Bill forward so we can work on it. But it's an outstanding start. Again, I want to applaud what's been done so far. Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Committee. I'm Frank Molina. I represent the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and I'll be reading some prepared remarks from the Chairman. The Chumash support AB 389 by Senator Ramos as he mentioned, he's a former Chairman of the Native American Heritage Commission.

And the Chumash remain closely connected to the Commission as the present Vice Chairman, Reggie Pagaling, is a Chumash tribal elder. The Commission is on the brink of huge new responsibilities in the form of Cal NAGPRA, the AB 52 tribalists, and the new scrutiny of most likely descendants for excavations of Native American human remains.

To achieve all these new goals, the Commission needs to evaluate confidential Native American cultural resource, sacred site and lineage information. Therefore, we respectfully request the ability for the Commission to go into executive session to receive such confidential information.

As is routinely done by other state and local agencies, the Commission will report out of executive session with a public report of any decision making. In addition, cultural resources are already protected from public disclosure under AB 52 and CEQA. AB 389 extends this confidentiality to any cultural resource and sacred site information received by the Commission.

Please extend this limited confidentiality pursuant to AB 389 to the Native American Commission. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the room that would like to express their support for this measure?

Andrew Governor, government advocates on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Looks like we have none. Do we have anybody in the room that would like to express their opposition? We'll then go to the phones. Moderator, if you could have people on the phones, please now express either their support or opposition to this measure.

For those that have support or opposition to item number 389 at this moment, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. And we will go to the line of 33. Please go ahead.

Yes, Chairman and Members of the Committee. Paula Treat, on behalf of Pechanga Band of Indians. We're working with various tribal attorneys on possible amendments as this moves along. So at this point, we're tweeners.

And we have no further callers on the phone.

Hey, thank you very much. We'll come back to the Committee. Do we have any questions or remarks that want to be expressed at this time? Looks like we have none. You may close, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, it has been too long and in many cases over 50 years since Native American remains have been locked up in coutorial facilities.

I ask for your support to move this issue forward to allow the Native American Heritage Commission to discuss these issues in closed session. I ask for your aye support.

Apparently, we're one shy still of a.

When the time is appropriate, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Member Villapudua, if you're ready, we're ready to entertain your Bill, which I believe is AB 476. Yes, you may proceed, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Chair and Members, allow me to present AB 476. I want to thank the chair for allowing the opportunity to present this Bill, which is a work in progress. An essential role of government organizations is to promote public safety and inform the public of information to ensure effective county operations.

More than ever, the way that constituents receive information has shifted from traditional media to digital media, making digital media a cost effective way to share information with the community.

I need to interrupt you. I'm so sorry. We have enough people here, so we need to call the roll and establish a quorum, if that's okay. You may please call the roll Madam Secretary.

On the quorum. Santiago. Lackey here. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan here. Cervantes. Dahle here. Davies here. Garcia. Gipson here. Jones-Sawyer here. Low. Mathis. Mccarty. Mckinnor here. Patterson. Quirk-Silva here. Ramos present. Rivas. Rubio here. Ta here. Villapudua here. We have a quorum.

We now have a quorum. And you may proceed.

All right. I want to thank the chair for allowing the opportunity to present this Bill, which will work its work in progress. The central role of government organizations is to promote public safety and inform the public information to ensure effective county operations.

More than ever, the way that constituents receive information has shifted from traditional media to digital media, making the digital media cost effective way to share information into the community. AB 476 seeks to clarify that San Joaquin county is able to build a digital display in one location that can be used to display countywide public messages and announcements. This simple clarification will ensure San Joaquin county residents receive the most updated public information and announcements in a timely fashion.

With me to testify today is Matt Garber, the Assistant Director of San Joaquin County Healthcare Services Agency, to testify and answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you. You may proceed, sir. Two minutes.

Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify on AB 476. My name is Matt Garber and I am the Assistant Director of healthcare services, the proud sponsor of this Bill. We are grateful to the author and this Committee for allowing us to present this Bill to allow greater flexibility in our county to share vital noncommercial information quickly with the community.

Specifically, the planned digital billboard is intended to display a variety of messaging, including public service advisories, campaigns to raise awareness to the community, promotion of county services, announcements surrounding tax deadlines, voter information and regional emergency advisories and alerts. With the ever expansive access to information, it's vital that our county has the ability to spread awareness and knowledge within our jurisdiction. We share an understanding with the Committee that the County of San Joaquin could rezone this parcel of land to comply with the outdoor Advertising act.

However, for a government entity to have to rezone a small portion of land every time they would like to erect a sign on county owned property next to a highway adds to the unnecessary red tape of a project designed simply to broadcast public notifications for the good of the community in a matter in a manner that does not have any public profit or monetization component, nor would it benefit any private agency entity or person.

AB 476 would provide the relief the county is looking for without setting a land use precedent of rezoning parcels of land to technically comply with the letter of the law. This permit provided by AB 476 would be incredibly valuable for the residents of the County of San Joaquin and potentially those that travel on the interstate to receive noncommercial, essential public messaging and announcements for the safety and benefit of San Joaquin residents and visitors. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment in support in the room? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Public comment in opposition in the room. Moving quick, and I'll go to the phone moderator. If we have anybody on the phone that would like to express either support or opposition, this will be their privilege.

Support or opposition at this moment for AB 476 press one, then zero. At this moment, we have one person that has queued up. One moment, and that will come from line number 22. Please go ahead.

My name is Patrick Frank. I'm the President of Scenic Los Angeles, we're a chapter of Scenic America. I would like to speak in opposition to this measure. Thank you.

And we have no further callers.

Okay, thank you very much. Questions from the Committee? We have a motion and a second. I guess it's your opportunity to close there, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As previous mentioned, this is a work in progress, so I look forward to continue to work with the chair and Committee staff to further refine the Bill. With this in mind, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

Santiago. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan aye. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia. Gipson aye. Jones-Sawyer aye. Lowe. Mathis. Mccarty. Mckinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-silva aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio aye. Ta aye. Villa-Pudua aye.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open. The measure is on call. Thank you. The motion for that measure was do pass that, too.

We'll now go to item seven. Ms. Quirk-Silva, this will be Assembly Bill 1175. You may begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments and sincerely thank the chair and Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB 1175 would allow a city or county a one year opportunity window to apply for a five year extension for on premises signs in redevelopment areas from the California Department of Transportation. My Bill is modeled after ASB 684 by Senator Hill, which was passed and signed into law in 2013.

That Bill had a sunset date of January 12023 a date which has now passed. Meanwhile, the signs and redevelopment areas are still relevant for local communities and local government coffers. AB 1175 only applies to existing advertising displays that were constructed before January 1, 2012. Cities and counties depend on these well established signs to help draw in locals and visitors to business centers or destination places where they can eat at restaurants or spend money at outlet shops or discount warehouses.

Realistically, we all know that cities and counties will be slowly recovering from the pandemic for many years to come. My Bill provides more time for our local governments and helps protect their General Fund tax revenue dollars which often help pay for community programs and services that our constituents rely on. With me here today in support of the Bill are Mr. Ed Manning, on behalf of the gardens Casino, and Mr. Jason Gonzalvis, on behalf of the City of Hawaiian Gardens.

You may proceed. Two minutes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. As noted by the author Jason Gonsalvez, representing the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the co sponsor of the Bill, as well as the cities of Signal Hill and the City of Southgate in support as well. Just to note, as mentioned in the analysis, the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the Hawaiian Gardens Casino, is responsible for 70 plus percent of the city's entire General Fund revenue.

Likewise, the unintended consequences of redevelopment disillusion and how retail sales have shifted to online, even pre pandemic, anything we can do to help direct folks towards brick and mortar retail establishments is critically important to cities throughout this state. We've been working with Caltrans Outdoor Advertising Association, and we're hopeful we can thread the needle here, so to speak, to buy these local agencies some additional time. I want to thank the chair of the Committee and most importantly the author for her leadership on this. Thank you.

Very well. Thank you. You may proceed, sir. Two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members Ed Manning, on behalf of Garden City Casino and Hawaiian Gardens, we're very thankful to the author for doing this Bill and to staff for their work on it. In October of last year, Hawaiian Gardens Casino received an Nov related to a sign on the 605 freeway from Caltrans in anticipation of the redevelopment area exemption for on premises sign expiring. The fine is $10,000 a day. This is for a sign that had been in place for a very long period of time.

And as Jason mentioned, for the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the revenue from our casino is approximately 78% of the General Fund. This sign is only about 1300ft from our property. So it's about as close to on premise without being on premise as possible. And so this Bill really is to provide some additional time and make sure that the revenues for the city, Hawaiian Gardens in similarly situated cities remain intact.

And these types of what should be on premises signs can remain and provide a source of revenue for these local governments. So with that, we support the Bill and thank the Committee.

All right, thank you very much. Do we have any other public Members that would like to express their support in the room?

Good afternoon, Jeff Aaron, California Sign Association we support this Bill. It's a significant source of revenue for these cities that are involved. We urge your passage of it.

Thank you very much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Do anybody in the room like to express their opposition? Moderator we'd now like to go to the phones, and anybody that would like to express either opposition or support, this would be their privilege to do so. Opposition or support for AB 1175 at this moment, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad and we'll go to line number 22. Please. Go ahead.

My name is Patrick Frank. I'm the President of Scenic Los Angeles, a chapter of Scenic America. We're in opposition to this Bill for a number of reasons.

We have no further comments on the phone.

Okay, we'll now bring it back to the Committee. Yes, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward for someone who served almost 10 years at a local municipality, the City of Carson, and realized not only the revenue that this brings to our cities, but also the commerce, attracting people to our cities for our restaurants and entertainment, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr. Gipson. Do we have any other Members who would like to express any questions or support? Seeing no further interest in doing so, we'll bring it back to you, ma'am, to close.

As was noted, this Gardens casino has a major impact on a very small city in my district, mostly Latino residents. And the revenue that comes there, not only it's the revenue, but it's the jobs that close to 2000 jobs in that small area. So it's really an important initiative for this community I represent.

All right, thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll

AB 1175 Quirk Silva. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members.

Okay, that measures on call. We'll leave the roll open for members to add on later. And we'll now move to Assemblymember Gipson. This will be file item eight, AB 1271.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. I think this is an easy, quick bill. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1271 which seeks to streamline the license process for workers at gambling establishments. Assembly Bill 1271 seeks to support workers by allowing for the portability of gaming license so that employees can hold similar positions with other gambling enterprises without having to reapply for a new license. Assembly Bill 1271 will also create a portal work permit to allow licensed individuals to work at more than one single gambling establishment. This bill helps remedy a problem that exists when you work at one, for instance, cardroom club., and there's another position you could be working at the first establishment part-time, and there's another position doing the same thing that you're doing well, you have two separate license. What this will do is streamline that process only requiring one license. This bill is a very thoughtful process to a very complex situation. With me, I would like to introduce Jarhett Blonien and also Brian Lungren to speak in support of this bill representing the Communities of California's Cardrooms in support of the bill.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. You may proceed, sir. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Brian Lungren of Platinum Advisors, on behalf of the communities of California card rooms, sponsor of Mr. Gibson's AB 1271. This legislation is purely and simple about government efficiency. It will streamline the licensing process for owners. It will do the same for employees. It will also assist in reducing any backlog of licensing procedures and avoid any redundant activities. We sincerely appreciate Mr. Gipson's support and also would ask for the committee's support as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you. You may proceed, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Jarhett Blonien in support of this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Do we have anybody in the room that would like to express their support for this measure? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition that would like to testify? Seeing none. Anybody in the room that would like to express their opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the phones. Moderator, would you please allow those who'd like to express either support or opposition? This is their chance.

Support or opposition to AB 1271 at this moment, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We have nobody on the phone in support or opposition.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll come bring it back to the committee. Is anybody like to make any comment, ask any questions? I see no one expressing interest to do so. You may close.

Thank you very much. As my witness indicated, to helping reduce the backlog, I failed to mention that in my opening comments. Again, this is a very thoughtful bill to allow employees to have the ability to work at two establishments using one license. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank my witnesses for coming in support of this bill.

Thank you, sir. We have a motion, a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1271, Gipson. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Santiago. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Cervantes. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Garcia. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Low. Low, aye. Mathis. McCarty. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Ta. Ta, aye. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye.

Measures on call. Thank you very much. We'll now move to the consent calendar. The measures on consent will be item six, AB 1074 by Alanis. Then item 11, AB 1768, Geo Committee, and item 12, AB 1769, The Geo Committee. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

On the Consent Calendar, item 6, 1074 Alanis, the motion is due pass to appropriations, recommend consent. Item 11, 1768, Committee on Governmental Organization, the motion is due pass, recommend consent. Item 12, AB 1269, The Committee on Governmental Organization, the motion is due pass to appropriations, recommend consent. Santiago. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Cervantes. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Garcia. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low. Low, aye. Mathis .McCarty. Mckinnor. Mckinnor, aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Ta, aye. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye. Consent calendar is on call.

The consent calendar will now be on call. We'll now move to AB 374 by author, Mr. Haney. And we need a motion to second. We have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 374 Haney, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Cervantes. Dahle. Dahle, no. Davies. Davies, no. Garcia. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low. Low, aye. Mathis. McCarty. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Ta. Ta, no. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye.

Measures on call. We'll now move to AB 389 by Assembly Member Ramos, do we have a motion and a second. We have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for AB 389.

AB 389 Ramos. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Cervantes. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Garcia. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low. Low, aye. Mathis. McCarty. McCarty, aye. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Ta. Ta, aye. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye.

Measures on call. Okay, this Committee will now be on hold until authors are able to arrive. We have three more authors, and apparently there are other committees, so we'll be standing by until they come.

Opening the roll for Assemblymember Mccarty on the consent calendar. McCarty, aye. AB 374 Haney. McCarty. McCarty, aye. AB 389 Ramos. McCarty. McCarty, aye. AB 476 Villapudua. McCarty. McCarty, aye. AB 1175 Quirk-Silva. McCarty. McCarty, aye. AB 1271 Gipson. McCarty. McCarty, aye.

Assembly Member Pacheco, you may present now. Assembly Bill 1673. We have a motion and a second.

Thank you.

You may continue.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Today, I present AB 1673. AB 1673 seeks to define terms in the Outdoor Advertising Act to further clarify the intent of AB 3168. These clarifications will help solidify the intent for local governments to exercise their zoning ad planning powers to relocate permitted signage onto sections of landscaped freeway. AB 1673 will also provide a definition of relocation to include the moving of a sign rather than just the removal of a sign and putting up a new one.

This bill will clarify that outdoor advertising display relocation agreements can be approved outside of eminent domain actions and situations where there is a specific plan development or redevelopment of a location requiring removal of an existing billboard. AB 1673 clarifies that a relocation can include conversions of existing displays to message centers, and no specific local development plan is required consistent with the intent of AB 3168 by Assembly Member Rubio. Additionally, it will ensure that signed relocat-sorry, sign relocations -

- will not be delayed through unnecessary, costly eminent domain proceedings, and that local government can realize income from advertising agreements. This bill is supported by the League of California Cities and the California Association of Counties. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Tim Fox, President of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, and Ron Beals, Association General Counsel.

Witnesses, you may proceed. Two minutes, please.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Tim Fox. I'm the current president of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association as well as Vice President of government affairs for OUTFRONT Media. Just to explain, outdoor advertising could be anything from a billboard to a digital billboard, which is most of our inventory. Of all of our members, we have over 60 members statewide, consisting of large companies and small family-owned companies, and many others.

Thank you very much for considering this legislation and thank you for agreeing to author this. There is not a lot to say except the support is the California League of Cities, as the assemblywoman said, as well as the California State Association of Counties. Many of our companies enter into these relocation agreements. It's a win-win for the companies as well as the cities.

And one thing we'd like to say, we feel this is just a clarification of rules that the industry has been working with for years. So with that, I'd like to turn over to Ron if you have any technical questions for him. He wrote many of these back in the day when he was with Caltrans.

Thank you very much, sir. You may proceed.

Ron Beals: I know you've got a busy agenda, so if you don't have any questions, I won't repeat what's already in the analysis and what the assemblywoman has already presented.

Very good. We'll seek, first of all, to see if there's any support in the room that like to express their support.

Jeff Aran, California Sign Association. We support the bill.

Thank you.

Korbe Palmer, representing Lamar Outdoor Advertising, in support.

David McWalters with Clear Channel Outdoor, in support.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Do we have anybody in the room that would like to express their opposition? Seeing none. We'll now go to the phones. Moderator, if you would, please allow those who like to express either their support or opposition on the phone. We have somebody in the room. It looks like they're anxious to express one or the other.

Mr. Chair and Members, Megan Loper. It is tough to have committees in two buildings at once. Apologies for being tardy, but Megan Loper, on behalf of Veale Outdoor, Clear Channel Outdoor, United Outdoor, and General Outdoor, is in support.

Very impressionable expression there. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll go back to the phones. Moderator, if you would, please now open the phone lines and allow those to express either support or opposition. That'd be great.

Support or opposition to AB 1673 at this moment. Press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. And we have nobody in support or opposition at this moment.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or any comments that would like to be expressed? Looks like we'll bring it back to you. Assemblymember, your opportunity to close, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for this opportunity to present this Bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Do we have a motion and a second? Yes. Moved. Apparently, we do. Okay, we have a first and a second. We'll now go back to you. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

AB 1673. Pacheco. The motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Measures on call. And we have a couple authors that are in route from other commitments, and they will be here soon. So we'll be standing by for just a couple of minutes. Thank you.

Opening the roll. For Assemblymember Mckinnor on AB 1673 Pacheco [Roll Call]

All right, we'll now entertain file item nine, AB 1415 Assemblymember Santiago.

Start hearing the Committee's temperament. It's very vacant, no? There you go. I'll begin and our sponsors here and we will also both be brief. The goal of AB 1415 is to further the allowance of revenue generating advertisement displays designating the downtown Los Angeles area and some of the region which is critical needed for economic development. I did this back in 2016-2017 as well.

And what it did for the area was help the boom the area and make sure that it offsets some of the labor costs. But really it was an investment tool to increase incentives for developing in downtown Los Angeles. And today, when LA is geared towards making towards meeting about 450 housing units in the element study and a great deal of development is increasing in costs, we see this as a tool. Now the RDAs have removed themselves and would potentially not allow for some of these signs to be up. Seeing the Committee's temperament, I am going to be just a little bit brief on that, Mr. Chair, and hand it over to our sponsor.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes, sir.

Jose Cornejo. I represent the LA area Chamber of Commerce and we are a sponsor of the Bill. As you've heard throughout the day today in your bills become before you on these ending of redevelopment zones and how they're coming through. This is a big and critical area, especially for downtown LA. And the know with the amount of cost in developing in LA, these really do help offset the project.

Additionally, I'll add to you is that the tourism in LA that this helps guide in the right direction at many times is one of those $5 billion industries as well. With that, I know that the Assembly Member has been working on this Bill before and he took half of the 110 the east side in a previous Bill. This would extend the same extraction to the west side of the freeway. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any public support in the room that like to be expressed at this time? This is your opportunity to do that. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? I see none there. Anybody in the room like to express opposition? Seeing none. It's time to go to the phones. Moderator do we have anybody that like to express either support or opposition? This will be their opportunity to do so.

Support or opposition to AB 1415 at this moment, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We will go to line number 37. Please go ahead. And 37, your line is open neutral expression.

What's your. One last time? Line 37. Your line is open to speaker. We'll go to line number 39, please go ahead.

I'm here for AB 471, so that's not up yet.

It will go to line 22, please go ahead.

Patrick Frank, I'm the President of Scenic Los Angeles, the chapter of Scenic America. I represent several thousand people who will be directly affected by this legislation. And it only will result in the creation of more digital billboards along the 10 freeway. This will contribute to traffic accidents and lack of safety. And it will reduce local property values according to many studies. So we urge a no vote on this matter. And nobody is saying the negative side of this. Well, I'm here to do that. The Committee should listen to us. Thank you.

And one last we'll go to 37, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm actually calling on AB 471, so if I can be readmitted into the queue.

There are no further comments at this time.

Hey, Committee Members. Any questions for the author or any comments? Yeah, we already have a motion in a second. Back to the author. You have the opportunity to close, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do really see this as a job creator. And nothing in this Bill eliminates Los Angeles authority to determine rules for billboard signs or acceptance for them. So they still have full discretion. Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

AB 1415 Santiago. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Santiago aye. Lackey aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Bryan aye. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia. Gipson. Jones-Sawyer. Low aye. Mathis aye. McCarty aye. McKinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Ta. Villapudua aye.

Measures on call. We have two more authors that hopefully are en route. That's the rumor. They're on their way. The Committee would indulge us. We're going to open the roll so those who need to add on can add on and be on time. Madam secretary. I'll hand it over to you on the consent calendar.

Santiago aye. Mathis aye. Item one.

Haney. Santiago aye. Mathis. no. Item two. AB 389. Ramos. Santiago aye. Mathis aye. Mathis aye. AB1175 Quirk-Silva. Santiago aye. Mathis aye. AB 1271. Gipson. Santiago aye. Mathis aye.

AB 1673 Pacheco. Santiago aye. Mathis. On the Consent Calendar. Ruvio aye. AV 374 Haney. Ruvio aye. AB 1271 Gipson. Santiago. Rubio aye,

Hear back, folks. Yeah, I think we can. If the Committee would indulge me to open up a comment period for a member who wasn't able to make a comment during a previous Bill, I would then hand over the comment.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I wanted to comment, Ms. Pacheco's Bill is basically a cleanup Bill from my Bill a couple years ago. But I wanted to state it on the record that I worked with Caltrans to develop that Bill the first time around, and they led me through the process. Now that we're trying to implement the Bill, they've changed it to where they're not implementing it the way that was intended.

And I've called the Department at least 10 times trying to get an appointment with the Director or somebody in Caltrans and have not heard anything. No response, so that we can work something out. And so I just wanted to put it on the record that I've reached out to Caltrans at least 10 times, and they've yet to return my call so that we can talk about the issues, because this is also a district issue for me. So thank you. I appreciate that.

I'd like to join you in that effort as well.

Yes, thank you.

For the record, it's noted we have an author. Thank you, Ms. Connolly. You know what they made the coffee fresh for.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments in 2022. 63% of California voters via Proposition 31 upheld the state law. Senate Bill 793, prohibiting tobacco retailers from selling most flavored tobacco products. SB 793 was groundbreaking and covers flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and tobacco product flavor enhancers in retail locations, including stores and vending machines in California.

As the law stands, retailers, their agents or their employees will be found guilty of an infraction and fined $250 per violation. Current law does not punish or criminalize anyone for purchasing, using, or possessing with the intent to use a flavored tobacco product or tobacco product flavor enhancer. Despite the overwhelming support from voters to ratify SB 793, flavored tobacco products continue to be sold in many stores across the state, which allows many teenagers to continue accessing these dangerous products.

AB 935 will explicitly authorize the California Department of Health and the Attorney General to enforce the flavored tobacco ban pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 2290.5, also known as the Stop Tobacco, access to kids or Stake Act. Consistent with other tobacco enforcement efforts, AB 935 will also replace the subdivision from the Health and Safety Code, which makes violations of 793 a misdemeanor and criminal penalty.

Instead, pursuant to the Stake act, it will become a civil penalty to retailers, their agents, or their employees who are in violation. Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority for all of us who care about the public health of our state and the well being of our children. An SB 793 can help achieve this goal, but only if the law is properly enforced.

AB 93935 will make explicit enforcement by CDPH and the AG, in addition to local agencies, to ensure compliance and protection of public health. I'll now pass the mic to two witnesses, George Osborne of UAPD and Jessica Moran is a legislative advocate for the California Dental Association in support of this Bill. Jessica, I think you're going to start, right?

Sounds good. Good afternoon, Chairman Members Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association here today in support of AB 935. CDA has a long history of supporting legislation that reduces tobacco usage and were supporters of SB 793. Tobacco use is estimated to account for over 90% of cancers in the oral cavity and pharynx. Tobacco use also contributes to gum disease, tooth loss, heart disease, and other cancers of the body. We support this Bill and the authorization to do proper enforcement in relation to SB 793, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. AFSCME Local 206, sponsor of AB 935. UAPD. AFSCME. Would like to thank Assemblymember Connolly for bringing this Bill forward as this, such as is such an important issue. Both the Legislature and California voters supported the passage of the flavor tobacco ban.

So we need to ensure it is being enforced properly because as it stands, these lethal products are still falling into the hands of teenagers, which is inexcusable and unacceptable. On behalf of UAPD, respectfully request that you support AB 935. Thank you very much.

And thank you very much. Much appreciate the brief and public comments. Now we're going to go to any main witnesses who are in opposition. I apologize about that. I don't see anyone, so I'm going to just keep skipping along until I'm corrected. Public comments and support who are in the room. Name, organization, and position only. And I have to stand by that.

Chair and Members Autumn Ogden-Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network here in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan, on behalf of the American Heart Association in support.

Hi, Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Tim Gibbs, American Lung Association, in support.

Jessica Ho, Northeast Medical Services in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Oussama Mokeddem, on behalf of Public Health Advocates in support.

Any public comments in opposition in the room? I'm not seeing any, so we're going to go to the phones. Moderator, please. For or against, name, organization, or position only.

Support or opposition AB 935 at this moment, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We will go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Bryce Docherty, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, in strong support. Thank you.

And our last phone queue is line 40. Please go ahead. Thank you. John Moss, San Francisco. Marin Medical Society. The organization is in strong support.

Thank you. John Moss, San Francisco. Marin Medical Society. The organization is in strong support.

Thank you.

No further comments. I just want to correct one piece, and I think it was, the error was on our side. We were going to recommend amendments and we ended up not doing it the last minute. So that may have not gotten over to you. So I apologize about that on our behalf. Any questions from Committee Members? Yes, Mr. Gipson.

So you said you were going to offer amendments?

No, we did not. I think we were in conversations to do so, but Health Committee ended up doing them all. Got it.

Thank you.

Any other comments from Committee Members? And if not, I'm going to go ahead and invite the author to close.

Mr. I apologize. I'm sorry. Just clarification, is there a $250 fine or not?

No. So that's now eliminated. So it's replaced with stake act enforcement. So consistent with other tobacco measures that impose a civil penalty.

Okay, so no monetary penalty.

Now, let me. Yes, it is on a civil basis. The $250 was actually a misdemeanor infraction.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Yes. And just for clarification, if I remember correctly, it was $250 before, and it just sets a different sort of structure, correct? It's no longer criminal, it's stake act. Civil penalty enforcement.

Invite the author to close. I'm sorry about that.

No, I appreciate your consideration and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Did we have a first or second move the Bill? Even in my best, I sometimes don't remember. We have a first and second.

Madam Secretary, please call the role

AB 935. Connolly, the motion is do pass to appropriations. Santiago aye. Lackey no. Aguiar-Curry. Berman aye. Bryan aye. Cervantes. Dahle no. Davies not voting. Garcia. Gipson aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low aye. Mathis. McCarthy aye. McKinnor aye. Patterson no. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio aye. Ta not voting. Villapudua aye.

Measures on call. And now we'll proceed to the next item. Thank you, Ms. Connelly. Apologize about that. AB 471, Kalra, whenever you're ready? We have a first by Mr. Gipson. I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Bryan. I'm sorry. And second by Ms. McKinnor. You're in good hands with those motions.

Thank you and good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill, and I'll be accepting the Committee amendments. AB 471 would permit the Department of Cannabis control to issue cannabis catering licenses to allow licensees to serve cannabis or cannabis products at private events. This Bill is a reintroduction of AB 2844 which this Committee passed last year. Despite recreational cannabis consumption becoming integral to the California experience for visitors and residents alike, the state has yet to regulate cannabis catering at hotels and throughout the travel industry. Under existing law, cannabis retailers can be issued state temporary event licenses that allow for onsite cannabis sales and consumption within a limited set of venues and under specific restrictions by the state. However, these licenses do not currently cover situations in which an event host prepays for cannabis and cannabis products to be provided free of charge to event guests. By creating these catering licenses, AB 471 will create a regulatory environment to help ensure greater safety and oversight of cannabis consumption at gatherings such as weddings and wellness retreats. I also look forward to working with the opposition to clarify this Bill does not undermine smoking ordinances. Here to testify in support is Jerred Kiloh, President of the United Cannabis Business Association.

Thank you, Mr. Kalra. Thank you for this second opportunity today to talk about cannabis consumption. This Bill, as much as an opportunity to allow hospitality and entrance, points to the regulated cannabis consumption, but it also is the ability to allow historically cannabis growing regions to have private events where the cultivator has the opportunity to showcase their land, their culture, and the unique products available at local retailers. Opening up this expanded access for new consumers to enjoy history and culture of these legacy cultivation regions around food, education and entertainment is what the tourist and the local traveler is looking for. The restricted nature of cannabis special event licenses currently doesn't showcase the intimate nature of the private catered events. Where would California wine tourism be without the opportunity to showcase the land and the nuanced complexities of the local wine in a tasting room or private event? If we are not explaining the hints and notes of the flavors of cannabis, then we are not doing the cannabis industry any justice and missing the opportunity to educate the world on all the benefits cannabis has. There is a major goal here in this Bill, and that is to displace the liability of cannabis consumption off the property owners insurance and include the catering license holders insurance, the caterer would be educated on the products the host and event would like to provide and an environment they would like to create. That conversation with the caterer's insurance company is where the risk assessment should be taking place, because this is where the business model of insurance companies comes in. Insurance claims will more efficiently regulate behavior and assess costs in reducing the barriers to establish physical locations for cannabis friendly private events. Local zoning in every private event still holds true and this will guide the activities allowed. Local control is well established through zoning laws that might move to be more restrictive on the activities at private cannabis events, but should be left to the municipalities for guidance and oversight. If we continue to make the consumption of cannabis taboo and prohibited, then we are signaling to the consumer that if you are going to consume illegally, you might as well purchase illegally, furthering us away from the goals of Prop 64, which is to reduce the stranglehold the illicit cannabis market has on the California consumer. Signaling to the world the hypocrisy that the cannabis laws pushes the tourist looking for a cannabis experience away from legal and regulated cannabis events, we need to publicly compete against the underground experiences that cannabis has already found through mobile apps, Instagram posts, and entertainment publications. To be able to attend a private event and take back the intimate nature of cannabis to your hometown. Okay. Cannabis supports the growth of this merchant industry. Please see this Bill as an advancement in regulated cannabis access and to regulate existing behaviors. Thank you.

I just try to hear that because I got tough Committee Members that will remind me when I don't hear to that. So thank you. Go to second witness. You don't have a second witness, I apologize. Any opposition witnesses, and I just would kind of recommend about two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members. My name is Tim Gibbs with the American Lung Association. We're pleased to hear from the author that he's willing to work with us on protecting smoke free workplace ordinances. That's what our opposition is based upon. For now, our opposition will remain, but we do look forward to that. And one thing I'll just say is that marijuana smoke, much like tobacco smoke, is a carcinogen, and it contains at least 33 constituents present. 33 constituents that are present in marijuana smoke are also present in tobacco smoke, and as I said earlier in this Committee, smoke is smoke, and it is dangerous, whether it is inhaled as tobacco smoke or a marijuana smoke. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. You have a second witness in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chairman Santiago. I'm still Dr. Lynn Silver, pediatrician, senior advisor at the Public Health Institute, and Member of DHCS's Prop 64 Advisory Committee. As in our earlier testimony, AB 471 will significantly undermine progress in smoke free air in our state, exposing workers, including pregnant women, to cannabis smoke, which is as harmful or moreso than tobacco smoke. Our grandchildren will be exposed to cannabis smoke instead of tobacco smoke. That is not progress in public health in our state. Cannabis emergency room visits have increased in California by 74% just between 2016 and 2020. Our emergency rooms are overrun with patients with acute psychosis, severe intractable vomiting, cardiac events, car accidents, and other cannabis related adverse reactions. California cannabis ER visits for those over 65 have increased 1800%. Cannabis daily use, heavily associated with cannabis use disorder, tripled over the last decade, and cannabis use during pregnancy has nearly doubled over the last decade, associated with low birth weight, prematurity, and long term harms to child development. This Bill will not only expose workers to secondhand smoke, it will greatly increase the spaces in our community where cannabis use will be normalized from hotels to community centers. That is simply unwise. Between 10 and 20% of users develop dependency on cannabis. Many of us supported legalizing cannabis to end mass incarceration and unjust enforcement, but not to maximize the numbers of Californians using cannabis are dependent upon it. Sales should be legally accessible, but specialized commerce. That has been our state law. The illicit market is a real impressing problem, but it is being used disingenuously to hold up any way of protecting consumers from harm. It reflects vast overproduction, often by cartels, in significant part for out of state export. According to expert analysts, we cannot solve that problem by pushing legal cannabis more aggressively on California consumers. Catering may indeed help some cannabis businesses, but it will hurt the health of our communities, and that is not a duty of this house. We respectfully request a nay vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, if there's any public comments in support in the room, this would be the time. Name, organization and position only, please.

Amelia Zamani, the California Travel Association, in support.

Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, in strong support.

Talia D'Amato, on behalf. Talia D'Amato, on behalf of California Normal, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're going to go with public comments and opposition. Who are in the room? Name, organization and position only, please.

Chair and members. Autumn Ogden Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network here in opposition today, but we do hope that we can work with the author to remove that going forward.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan, on behalf of the American Heart Association, we also have an opposed position, but look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we go to the phones. Any support or opposition? Name, organization and position only, please.

Opposition or support for item number 471, at this moment, press one then zero on your telephone keypad. We will go to line 37, please go ahead. 37 went out of queue. We will go to line 34, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Wesley Hine with the Cannabis Distributors Association in strong support. Thank you.

We now go to line 41, please go ahead.

This is Jonathan Swethko with Angela Semal in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

We now go to line number 15, please go ahead. Yes, 15, your line is open.

Yes, my name is Luis Rivera. I'm with Social Equity LA, and we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

We'll now go to line 23, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Armin Pronian, representing Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance Network, and we strongly support this Bill.

Our last caller in queue is line number eight. Please go ahead.

This is Gregory Lefian with the Long Beach Collective Association, and we are in favor of this Bill

Looks like a few others queued up. We'll now go to line 37. Please go ahead.

This is Javier Montez in strong support with UCBA.

We'll go to line 39. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Virgil Grant with California Minority Alliance. Strong support.

And with that, we have no further comments.

Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee Members? I'm not seeing any. I appreciate you bringing the legislation forward and accepting the amendments, and I trust in you to continue in dialogue on the second half smoke issue. I mean, I think that's a merited conversation, and I think it's what we're going to continue to bump into as we move forward in kind of the new space of cannabis. So I do appreciate the comments, and they didn't go unheard. Thank you very much for those comments. Having said that, closing comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also have great respect for the organizations that are here in opposition. As the person that led the effort in San Jose to ban outdoor smoking and outdoor dining and public spaces, I can be certain that this is in no way going to be a workaround. Any ordinances, if smoking is not permitted by tobacco, it will not be permitted by cannabis under this, and that's not going to change. With that respect, we ask for an aye vote.

We have a first and a second already. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 471 Kalra, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Berman. Berman, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Dahle. Dahle, no. Davies. Davies, no. Garcia. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Jones Sawyer. Low. Low, aye. Mathis. McCarty. McCarty, aye. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ramos. Rivas. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Ta. Ta, no. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye.

Measures on call. We want to go ahead and open the roll for the Members who are here so they can move on with their day, if you're okay with that. So we may do it several times. Go ahead.

AB 374: Haney. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye. Garcia? Jones-Sawyer? Patterson? Ramos? Rivas?

AB 389: Ramos. Aguiar-Curry? Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye. Garcia? Jones-Sawyer? Patterson? Ramos? Rivas?

AB 476: Villapudua. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye.

AB 935: Connolly. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye.

AB 1175: Quirk-Silva. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye.

AB 1415: Santiago. Berman? Aye. Berman aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye. Oh, yeah.

Okay, I'm just going to go from the top.

We'll go from the top three.

Oh okay. Yeah. Okay, let me do this one first. 1415: Santiago. Aguiar-Curry? Aye.

Oh I'm, I'm sorry. I apologize.

Garcia? Gibson? Aye. Gibson aye. Jones-Sawyer? Patterson? Ramos? Rivas? Rivas aye. Ta? Ta aye.

And then you want to vote on Pacheco?

You just voted on Santiago, right? Yeah. All right, let me get my. You voted on Haney. You're my third vote. Okay, so Pacheco. I'll just go down all of them. AB 1673. Gibson? Aye. Gibson aye.

All right, thank you. There's a few people we need to double check and then we'll start all over from the top. Ceritos can move on with his day. You should have gotten them all but we'll start over again. Because we ran the roll once when you were here.

On the consent calendar. Berman? Berman aye. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 374: Haney. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 389: Ramos. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 471: Kalra. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 476: Villapudua. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 935: Connolly. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 1175: Quirk-Silva. Rivas? Rivas aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Rivas? Rivas aye. AB 14, oh I got that.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Rivas? Rivas aye. On the consent calendar. Cervantes? Cervantes aye.

On the consent calendar. Garcia? Aye. Garcia aye. AB 374: Haney. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 389: Ramos. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 471: Kalra. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 476: Villapudua. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 935: Connolly. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 1175: Quirk-Silva. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 1415: Santiago. Garcia? Garcia aye.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Garcia? Garcia aye.

On the consent calendar, Mr. Jones-Sawyer. Jones-Sawyer aye. AB 374: Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye.

AB 389: Ramos. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye.

AB 471: Kalra. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye.

AB 476: Villapudua. Jones-Sawyer already voted on that.

AB 935. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye.

AB 1415: Santiago. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye. You're good.

Thank you.

Mathis is here. I can see Mathis to note, Mathis, Mathis, Mathis, Mathis.

You're good, dude. Yeah, I'm going to run back on. Thanks, man.

Yes let me just. Mr. Patterson is here, okay.

I'm sorry Mr. Patterson.

AB 471: Kalra. Mathis? Mathis no. Patterson? Patterson not voting.

AB 935: Connolly. Mathis? Mathis no. Patterson? Patterson no.

AB 1415: Santiago. Ramos? Ramos aye.

I'm going to go from the top for Patterson on the consent calendar. On the consent calendar, Mr. Patterson? Patterson aye.

AB 935: Connolly. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 374: Haney. Patterson? Patterson not voting.

AB 389: Ramos. Patterson? Patterson aye.

AB 476: Villapudua. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1175: Quirk-Silva. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Patterson? Patterson aye.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Ramos? Ramos aye.

On the consent calendar, Mr. Ramos. Ramos aye. AB 374: Haney. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 389: Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 471: Kalra. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 476: Villapudua. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 934: Connolly. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1175: Quirk-Silva. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1271: Gibson. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1415: Santiago. Ramos? Ramos aye.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Ramos? Ramos aye.

Ramos voted.

It just takes a while to get back and forth. You got to count on at least, Yeah, it's about 10 minutes, and if somebody talks to you, it's about 15 minutes. Yeah, no, I know. Yeah, it is. If you're fast. Yeah, it changes the whole game being over here.

Yes, sir.

I got to head over to the next building too. UNE, that's where I'm at right now.

9201112131415.

Thank you.

Yeah. 111213.

They said she's on her way both there, so she was obviously.

Keeping the world open.

Yeah, right. It just changes the whole thing, you know, five models. zero, you're right. My guess is 5 miles. zero, yeah. Are you a dog? I am, but no, I can't because my time spent between work and little kids, I rarely ever get the opportunity. They have their own sports practice. They were three years old. They played, but it wasn't their sport. It was more for the cardio. But they are going to wrestle professionally.

I get it. I really appreciate it.

Okay, on the consent calendar, Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry aye. The consent calendar is out.

AB 374: Haney Aggie R curry. Aggie r Curry I that measure has 17 ayes, four no votes and one not voting.

AB 374: Haney. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure has 17 ayes, four no votes, and one not voting.

AB 389: Ramos. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure has 22 votes. It is out.

AB 471: Kalra. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure has 17 ayes. Four no votes, and one not voting.

AB 76: Villapudua. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure has 21 ayes. It is out.

AB 935: Connolly. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure has 16 ayes, four no's, and two not voting.

AB 1175: Quirk Silva. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure is out with 22 votes.

AB 1271: Gibson. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure is out with 22 ayes.

AB 1415: Santiago. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure is out with 22 ayes.

AB 1673: Pacheco. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry aye. That measure is out with 22 ayes.

GO is now adjourning.