Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning. Welcome to this morning's business and Professions Committee hearing. We have 10 bills on today's agenda, nine Senate bills and one Assembly resolution, including the following two bills on consent, SB 601 by Senator Mcguire, and SB 630 by Senator Dodd for each measure being presented today. We will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room today to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side.

Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. And with that, we'll begin today's hearing. And I see pro Tempore Atkins with agenda number five, SB 385. We are ready for you whenever you are.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 385. This is my first Bill in the new Assembly, so I'm pretty excited. I'm here to present SB 385. Last year, as reproductive freedom faced unprecedented threats from the Supreme Court and other states, California took bold action to protect and expand access to quality reproductive care.

As other states continue to erode access to abortions, it's clear that we need to remain steadfast and do everything we can to increase the number of trained providers available to Californians and those who need to come here for reproductive health care. And to that end, SB 385 would improve reproductive health care training opportunities for physicians assistance and enable them to provide first trimester abortions within the scope of their clinical and their professional education and training.

This builds off of the success of several of my prior bills, both which were signed into law, to strengthen access to abortion and increase the number of providers in our state. In 2013, I authored AB 154, which allowed nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physicians assistants to provide first trimester abortions.

Last year, I authored SB 1375, and again, I thank you for helping work with me on that piece of legislation, to update training standards and address workforce barriers for nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives seeking to provide first trimester abortion care. SB 385 would apply the same training standards to physician assistance that SB 1375 established for nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives.

It further strengthens and expands access to reproductive care while also lifting up a workforce of skilled physician assistants and giving them more opportunities to care for their patients. I would respectfully ask for your support, and I have two primary folks in support today, with your permission, Molly Robson and Jennifer Chase.

Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Proto Atkins. And just hold on 1 second. We're just going to establish a quorum real quick and then we'll continue with the presentation. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

Berman. Here. Flora. Here. Alanis. Alvarez. Baines. Bonta. Here. Chen. Dixon. Gibson. Grayson Erwin. Jackson Lee. Lowenthal. McCarty. Mckinnor. Nguyen. Patterson. Ting.

We have a quorum. Great. We have a quorum. Please continue.

Morning, Chair and Members, Jen Chase with the University of California. The UC is pleased to support SB 385 by Senator Atkins, which allows physicians assistance, or PAs, with the requisite training to perform abortions by aspiration techniques independent of direct physician supervision.

While the Legislature has worked diligently to expand California's abortion providing workforce, significant obstacles remain. Over 40% of California counties do not have clinics that provide abortions. Eight California counties, particularly those in the Far north and East, lacked even one licensed OBGYN in 2020.

And a growing body of research has found that PAs are more likely than physicians to provide care in rural areas and to Low income and underserved populations. There are approximately 14,600 active licensed PAs in California. By enabling more trained and qualified PAs, the ability to provide first trimester abortion care, SB 385 would help close the provider gap in communities where access to health care is already a challenge.

The University of California remains committed to ensuring access to reproductive health care is preserved and expanded in California. We respectfully ask for your support of SB 385. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We represent the seven affiliates in the state who provide sexual reproductive health care through over 110 health centers in California. I'm here today in support of SB 385.

Almost a year ago today, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and since abortion providers and their patients have faced a new onslaught of unprecedented attacks on abortion, today, 20 states have implemented either a total ban or a severe restriction on abortion across the country.

California must ensure that the abortion workforce in California remains resilient amidst the attacks on abortion and ensure that those who are able and willing to provide this care are trained to do so without unnecessary barriers.

SB 385 will update the training standards and requirements for physician assistance to be in line with that of other advanced practice clinicians to continue to meet the needs of patients in California and those forced to seek care in California from banned states. We must ensure that we continue to expand and support the abortion workforce. And with that, I would respectfully urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And with that, want to open it up to any primary witnesses in opposition? Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition in the hearing room today? Seeing none. Why don't we go to add on testimony? Why don't we just do everyone at once, folks in support and opposition all at the same time. If you want to add on to the Bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, in position on the Bill.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the hearing room who want to add on in support or opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to colleagues for questions, comments, motion seconds? Quiet group. We don't have enough coffee. Have a motion. Couple seconds. Thank you very much. Any comments? Questions? No, seeing none. Protem Atkins, would you like to close?

Take advantage and say thank you for your time and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Protem Atkinss, for bringing this very important Bill forward. I fully support increasing access to abortion care where we can, particularly with the really disturbing conversations happening in other states across the country on this issue. And I'm more than happy to support your Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 385 Atkins. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Berman. Aye. Berman. Aye. Flora. No. Flora. No. Alanis. Alvarez. Aye. Alvarez. Aye Baines. Aye. Baines. Aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta. Aye. Chen. No. Chen. No. Dixon. Gibson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Erwin. Aye. Erwin. Aye Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. McCarty. Mckinnon. Aye. Mckinnon. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Patterson. No. Patterson. No. Ting. Aye. Ting. Aye.

Great. That Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you very much. I'm going to hand the gavel over to Vice Chair Flora while I go present in Senate elections. Thank you, Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, next up, we have Senator Menjivar presenting SB 372. It's not on. Maybe hit the button.

There we go. Good morning, Assembly Members. I hope we're all doing well. I'm here to talk about, we'll have two bills, but the first one is my SB 372, the Respect for Names Act. This Bill, I'm very proud to say, is a bipartisan Bill with one of your colleagues.

It's looking to protect the privacy ensure the safety of transgender nonbinary individuals, those who are under the Secretary of State's Safe at Home program, by eliminating the use of previous names at the DCA for licensed professionals who have changed their legal name, ensuring this is only for individuals who legally change their name.

For those of you who don't know, the Safe at Home program is in part for individuals who are victims, survivors of domestic violence, harassment, stalking, whose their known location is important to keep private, and additionally for those who don't know when a transgender non binary individual transitions and legally changes their name, their dead name, or is their name assigned at birth?

Currently, anyone under the DCA, which licensed folks ranging from manicurists to social workers who legally change their name, still have their dead name assigned. So what you'll see on the breeze system is their legal name and below it, their dead name, obviously outing the individual who's transgender.

We know that we've seen an increase of harassment, discrimination, stalking of our transgender individual, and this is another way to ensure that we're not outing someone. It will remove a licensed previous name from their online vertification site upon request. So if I was a transgender individual, I would call and request for my dead name to be removed.

This does leave the onus on the individual to call and ensure that that name is received. DCA is not going to automatically change it on their own to ensure that we also have protection for consumers because the license number follows you no matter what. If you get married, divorce, change your name, that license number stays with you throughout your career. Everything in terms of enforcement, disciplinary action does follow you because it's the same license number, but we're adding additional protections for that.

The breeze system, the breeze online system is where you would have history of enforcement, history of disciplinary action because it's a different name, perhaps. I, as a consumer, am looking for a therapist that I have a file against, a report against, and I'm looking to see if that's on there. And I'm looking for the name that I used to know, that I knew them by, and their name is different. I look it up, that name doesn't come up.

However, there will be a note underneath that says, this individual has enforcement action. Please call the DCA for more information. We want to make sure that the consumer has all the information accessible at their fingertips to know, at minimum, that there is enforcement action. For an individual that has a history of disciplinary action, this strikes a balance between consumer protection and it's something that we've been working on the Senate side with the Committee, and I thank the Committee for their work on this.

But it strikes a balance between consumer protection and integral license privacy. So here to testify in support of this Bill, I have two individuals, Dr. Tristan Busini, a clinical forensic psychologist and gender affirmative care specialist, followed by John Dribbinger, a senior advocate, policy and legislative affairs, California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies.

Thank you so much, Senator. First witness, two minutes apiece. Thank you. Thank you.

Perfect. Good morning, esteemed Assembly Members. My name is Dr. Tristan Buzzini. I'm a licensed clinical psychologist in our State of California. For the majority of my 15 year career, I have also been a civil servant, working directly with some of our most underserved, vulnerable, and dangerous patient populations. I am also a transgender man. It has been nearly a decade since I was granted a confidential, court ordered name change and had my original birth certificate sealed.

This fact is directly correlated with my safety as a transgender man, my dead name, name assigned at birth, being strongly associated with a female identity, making an immediate source for outing me as transgender. Despite this, I have been subject to harassment and threats, loss of job opportunities and income, and been publicly outed without my consent as a result of our state's current practice of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record.

As a result of these disclosures, I have been despicably referred to using my dead name by disgruntled former patients and coworkers, had new clients refused to work with me or cancel care, abruptly, been threatened with violence and sexual harm, working with patients in our correctional environments, been subject to extortion attempts, and had provisional job offers rescinded after my licensing record was checked. Consumer protection has been cited as the primary opposition to the passage of SB 372.

Yet the act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees puts our lives and livelihood at risk on a daily basis, which directly affects access to care from ethical, hardworking, and upstanding professionals, increasing the risk of harm to both licensees and consumers. The act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record is a discriminatory practice that impacts our personal and professional lives and impedes our ability to serve the public.

The passage of SB 372 would allow us to engage in our work with respect, dignity, and safety all people deserve. I thank you, Senator Menjivar, for your important work in this area, and thank you, Chairman and esteemed Assembly Members, urging your aye vote on SB 372.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you. My name is John Drebinger, senior advocate with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agency, CBHA. Our Association represents behavioral health providers across the state who serve over 1 million Californians with vital mental health and substance use services. I stand before you in strong support of SB 372, and CBHA is a proud co sponsor. The Bill recognizes the importance of safeguarding the rights and safety of both providers and consumers, while preserving transparency and accountability.

It respects the journey of Trans providers and protects their right to be recognized as who they truly are. By allowing Trans providers to align their professional identity with their authentic selves, SB 372 fosters an environment of inclusivity and respect. It ensures they can serve their clients with confidence and dignity, promoting trust which strengthens therapeutic relationships. It's important to note this Bill does not hinder consumers ability to file a complaint when necessary. The avenues for addressing concerns and ensuring quality care remain intact.

Our Member agencies often employ providers who have transitioned, and we have witnessed firsthand the challenges they face due to outdated regulations. SB 372 would rectify this and provide them with the protection and recognition they deserve. In conclusion, I urge you to support SB 372 as a vital step towards safeguarding the rights and identity of Trans behavioral health providers and ensuring the safety of their clients. Help us embrace a future where inclusivity and respect thrive in our behavioral health community. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition to SB 372? Seeing none, we'll do add on testimony for support and opposition for SB 372. Support and opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the first one a co sponsor. The second one is strong support. Urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Magaly Zagal, on behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you.

My name is Kathleen Houston. I'm a board certified behavior analyst and a licensed marriage and family therapist, and I'm in support of 372.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako. I'm a licensed psychologist and licensed marriage family therapist, also President of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association, and we are in strong support of SB 372. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, chair and Members. James Michael Agpalo with AFSCME California Strong support. Morning, Mr.

Chair and Members, Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of CCAPP in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association in strong support and one of the co sponsors.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, also a co sponsor in strong support.

Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also one of the proud co sponsors of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jessica Moran with California Dental Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.

Thanks.

Good morning. Corey Hashida with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Paganelli, licensed psychotherapist, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support and or opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Ms. Irwin.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, I really thank you for bringing this forward. I think this is a very important issue. You and I have had some discussions about making sure that consumers are protected in regard to disciplinary actions, and the language in the Bill right now is a little bit vague on it. But your staff had said you're willing to clarify that language and make it more clear. And I just want to.

Yeah. Thank you. Assemblymember, you know, after a conversation, I did reach out, we did reach out to DCA. Our intent, and they know our intent is to ensure that there is visibly noticeable a section that says this individual has enforcement action so that consumer would know. So we are going to be further clarifying that with DCA, and we've asked for technical assistance to ensure that it's even more clear in the Bill.

Well, I certainly appreciate it, and I'd like to move the Bill.

Thank you very much. We have a motion, we have a second. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you to the testimony and the witnesses to really help us understand what you're hoping to accomplish. I actually had a similar question, and maybe if you could just walk me through, if you're a consumer, what you would expect if someone's looking for someone or looking somebody up on the website, I assume what they should expect.

I just want to be clear about what your intent is with that. And it's clear you spent a lot of time to address this issue. And so I just want to give you a chance to help those of us who maybe aren't as familiar with that process, what that would look like from a consumer's perspective.

Absolutely. Assembly Member well, right now, if you were to do a Google search, you're looking for a mental health therapist. You're going to type in, maybe find a mental health therapist near me, find a mental health therapist in Sacramento. The website that we're looking to address won't even come up, won't be your first, second or third Google Search because you're searching for a mental health therapist that works for XYZ Company. The breeze system, as you heard from one of my witnesses, is utilized to check their license.

If you're seeking employment, is utilized to check enforcement. Say you did your Google search and you found a mental health therapist. You're like, this is the one I want. Because each and every one of them have a bio. The Breeze system does not have a bio of each mental health therapist. So you find that individual, you're like, this is the one I want. And for a reason.

I mean, I've never done this, but you might say, I want to see where they live, where they work, and if they have a disciplinary action. So then you would have to Google Breeze system California breeze.ca.gov. Then type in the license number or type in the name to find their discliplinary action on that system. The only thing you would see is license name, address, license number, their type.

So if you're a manicurist or a social worker, their status is if active, deactivated, or expired, and then the expiration date only. That is the only thing you see on there. Now, in addition, if that individual has disciplinary action, it would say enforcement action taken right there currently. Right now, if you're a transgender individual, you'll have two names on there. So we're looking to remove the dead name and just have their legal name.

So if an individual sees--I'm a consumer and I see John Smith has disciplinary action, it would then show there, and then it would prompt me to call to get more information on what specifically that is.

Okay. What the system would do is it would identify if there was disciplinary action prior to what your Bill would do, which is.

The breeze system already has disciplinary action history. It covers it there. Absolutely.

But what it does, it ties it to if there was a name change to the prior name.

Yeah. Because it ties it to the license number.

And the license number never changed.

Got it.

You explained that earlier. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. I'll second the motion.

Great. So we have a motion in a second. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I really appreciate the engagement and reaching out to me before. And like I mentioned, the intent is to balance consumer protection and also the safety of the mental health therapists and individuals. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for your work to balance the mutually important interests of protecting consumers and affirming the identities of all Californians. And I missed the whole conversation, but I understand it was we can do it again, sir, I appreciate the offer. I'll watch the tape, but appreciate you're stating that it's your intention that the Bill be implemented in a way that ensures the public is clearly aware when a licensee has a history of discipline and appreciate your commitment to ensuring that's the case. And with that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 372. Menjivar. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Berman. Aye. Berman. Aye. Flora. Not voting. Flora. Not voting. Alanis. Alvarez. Aye. Alvarez. Aye. Baines. Aye. Baines. Aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta. Aye Chen. Not voting. Chen. Not voting. Dixon. Gibson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Irwin. Aye Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. McCarty. Aye. McCarty. Aye. McKinnor. Aye. McKinnor. Aye. Min. Aye. Min. Aye. Patterson. Ting. Aye. Ting aye.

That bill is out with 13 votes. Thank you very much. Congratulations, Senator, and I believe you have a second bill. Agenda Item Number Four: AB 373. Move the bill. You got a bipartisan, very bipartisan motion and second.

Perfect. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

It's my favorite presentation. Any key witnesses in--

I stayed up to midnight on my talking points, you know?

Looks like you've got some witness testimony. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Again, my name is John Drebinger, Senior Advocate with CBHA, the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, here today to request your support for SB 373. Our members experience firsthand the challenges associated with their address being publicly available. For example, psychotherapists often work with complex populations, including some that may leave them vulnerable to stalking and harassment. Currently, the only option for licensees to avoid sharing their personal address is to pay for and maintain a PO box.

SB 373 offers a simple solution to address this issue while still allowing consumers to identify a provider on the BreEZe system, as Senator Menjivar mentioned, to verify their license status and file a complaint if necessary and view their disciplinary record. Importantly, this idea is not novel. Several boards under DCA already operate this way and SB 373 helps bring the same protections to mental health providers. Thank you for your time and consideration of this measure.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Anna Paganelli. I'm a licensed psychotherapist in Santa Cruz County. I've been working for about 23 years in the mental health field. One of the biggest things that we deal with is safety. It's child safety, adult safety, everybody's safety, and sometimes, when we're trying to do our jobs, we put our own selves at risk.

So we're totally willing to put ourselves at risk for our job, but what we don't want is to have the additional risk to our own families, to our own safety when we go home. This bill helps make that a little bit safer for us. Every therapist who's been working has some story or another about either being stalked themselves or having a colleague who has been. It's scary.

Sometimes you get somebody in your office or you get somebody you've worked with, somebody in the past, and you find them near your home. You find them places you don't want to see them. We want to be able to continue to do our jobs safely. When the pandemic hit and so many therapists started to work from home, it opened up a lot of more possibilities for being able to serve clients all over the state, clients who have low service areas, et cetera, but when we have their addresses on record, it just opens up too much exposure for people.

PO boxes are a nice idea, but a lot of times they're not available and they're super expensive in different areas. So I've been there. I don't like taking additional risks beyond what I need to take for work. So I really encourage you to support SB 373. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anybody want to add on as a #MeToo supporter? Well, let's do supporters first and then we'll do opponents. Supporters who want to add on, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

My name is Kathleen Houston, I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Assembly. Dr. Tristan Buzzini, licensed clinical psychologist, strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Alley with California Psychological Association, one of the co-sponsors, in support.

Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, co-sponsor, support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. James Michael Paula with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Sumaya Nahar with the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapist, also one of the co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako, licensed psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist on behalf of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association. We strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christina Di Caro, representing the California Veterinary Medical Association with a support if amended position in the hopes that we can add the Veterinary Medical Board to the bill as it continues to move, and we want to thank the Senator and her staff for working with us, and this Committee for working with us, and of course, the Veterinary Medical Board as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Jessica Sieferman from the Veterinary Medical Board. We have a support if amended position. We appreciate the Committee analysis recommendation to add the Veterinary Medical Board to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and Senator, I appreciated your very brief presentation, but--

I forgot to say that. Yes, I will be accepting the amendment.

Beautiful. Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anybody want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to Colleagues. We've got a motion, we've got a second. Any questions or comments? Yes, please.

I want to thank you for this bill and thank all the hard work for all of our psychologists that are out there as a mental health provider. This is a really, really scary subject that I've been assaulted, I've been stalked myself. The concern also is there needs to be more done because if you look up your name, you can find your home address.

That's happened to me several times as well because we hid my home address and they still found me. So there's still more work to be done to make sure that we protect all of our mental health providers out there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Bains. Any additional questions or comments? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Committee Members. You're absolutely right, Assembly Member. My wife is a licensed marriage family therapist. She's had stalkers before and our address is public, so this is something that's near and dear to my heart and more than open that we can work on something next year to further--make this a stronger protection. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and couldn't support the bill more. A couple of years ago, somebody who was trying to pressure me to vote a certain way blasted my home address to their distribution list where my wife stays when I'm gone a lot, and needless to say, I didn't appreciate that, but to Dr. Bains' point, unfortunately, our information is far too easy to find, so I really appreciate this step to make it a little bit harder and we'll keep on looking out for more ways to protect our mental health professionals, our health professionals, and others. Thanks, and I'm happy to recommend an aye vote on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 373: Menjivar. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.' Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Flora? Aye. Flora, aye. Alanis? Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Bains? Aye. Bains, aye. Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Dixon? Gipson? Aye. Gipson, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.

Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McCarty? Aye. McCarty, aye. McKinnor? Aye. McKinnor, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Patterson? Ting? Aye. Ting, aye.

Thank you.

That Bill is out. Thank you, Senator. Now, we're looking for more Senators, or do we have a--We've got it. We've got an Assemblymember. Agenda item number 1, ACR 86. Assemblymember Kalra, it's good to see you, my friend.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. ACR 86 would encourage state, local, nonprofit, and private partners to work together to implement solutions that address the state's animal shelter overpopulation problem. California's animal shelters are overcrowded and overwhelmed.

Many shelters are so full, they are forced to resort to extreme measures like turning away stray animals and euthanizing healthy ones for space. Fortunately, spay and neuter surgeries are an effective means of limiting the unchecked pet population. However, unsubsidized spay and neuter surgeries are expensive, costing hundreds of dollars per animal. Likewise, the supply of low and no cost services cannot meet demand, leading to months-long waitlists for many procedures.

This issue is further exacerbated by a chronic veterinarian shortage that leaves critical spay and neuter facilities without proper staffing. ACR 86 recognizes and addresses the many compounding causes of the animal shelter overpopulation crisis. First, it urges the Veterinary Medical Board to encourage out of state veterinary staff to register to practice in California. Second, it encourages state, local, nonprofit, and private partners to develop and fund high-volume spay and neuter services across the state.

Finally, it asks the state to encourage Californians to adopt animals from shelters instead of buying them from breeders. By encouraging these steps, ACR 86 aims to alleviate the pressure felt by our animal shelters and ensure that they are able to give vulnerable animals the care they need. With me to provide supporting testimony are Judie Mancuso, founder, CEO and President of Social Compassion in Legislation, and Kenn Altine, CEO of Sacramento SPCA.

Great. Go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Judie Mancuso, Social Compassion in Legislation. When I founded my group in 2007, our goal was to create legislation and programs that would alleviate the pet overpopulation crisis we had at that time. Since then, we have sponsored over 60 bills and have seen 23 of them signed into law. We also got our "pet lovers" license plate on the road, which now has brought in millions of dollars to spay and neuter.

Historically, our shelters were taking in right at 1 million dogs and cats, with over half being euthanized at an annual cost to taxpayers every year of a quarter of $1.0 billion. We have made great strides with our legislative efforts. However, COVID set us back several years, and its effects continue. We have gone to great lengths to document the current state of affairs in ACR 86, and resolutions, as we know, can be symbolic, but that is not our goal. We need action.

With your help, we can reset the narrative. We must encourage out of state veterinarians to practice in California, even if only temporarily. We must create more funding for low-cost, high-volume spay and neuter programs. We must urge Californians to adopt from a shelter or a rescue group instead of buying from a breeder. And we must give animal control services the resources they need to more robustly enforce breeding, as well as spay and neuter laws.

Let's amplify these messages to each of your districts, all of which share the burden of this issue. Thousands of wonderful dogs, cats and rabbits are being dumped, overbred and losing their lives in our state. This is a humane crisis for the animals and for those attending to their care. It's also a financial burden on all of us. Please take this resolution to heart and not only vote yes, but also join as a co-author. Thank you all.

Thank you. Ms. Mancuso.

Good morning, I'm Kenn Altine. I'm the CEO of the Sacramento SPCA, which is the largest provider of low-cost veterinary care in Northern California. A 2021 survey shows that 14 California counties rank in the bottom 25% nationally on the Veterinary Care Accessibility Score, which means there is extremely limited or no ability to see a veterinarian. The overall score for California was 47 out of 100, with the Central Valley and North State faring the worst. Nevada has a score of 55. Nebraska has a score of 71.

We're stuck at 47. And even if Californians find a vet in their neighborhood, county or region, many cannot afford the cost of treatment. The results are predictable and heartbreaking. Without access to a vet, Californians whose pets are sick or suffering have few choices. Give the animal to one of the few shelters still accepting. Owner surrenders, have it humanely euthanized if they can afford it, or allow it to suffer. Many are finding another alternative: Turn it into a public facility as a stray.

Our public shelters are filled with two distinct populations, the older, sicker animals people can no longer provide care for, and litters upon litters of kittens and puppies, the result of pandemic closures of low-cost spay and neuter clinics that have not been able to reopen at full capacity because of a shortage of veterinarians.

Our state's euthanasia rate is climbing after years of decline, public facilities are forced to euthanize animals to make space for more, and cats and dogs with treatable medical conditions end up at the front of that line because public shelters cannot attract or keep veterinarians in a tight labor market. We can spend resources on expanding facilities and hiring more people to deal with the growing shelter population and euthanasia.

Or we can invest in solutions, building and staffing regional spay/neuter centers, providing incentives for California vet school graduates to stay, and attracting vets from other states, especially those trained in high-quality, high-volume spay/neuter surgeries. Raising awareness is the first step, but we need to quickly follow words with actions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. I want to open it up for any folks who want to add on in support of the Bill. Want to add your name, organization you're with. If any position on the Bill? Seeing none. Anybody wants to add on in opposition to the Bill? Still seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for. Got a motion. Got a second. Comments? Questions? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

My favorite close. Thank you to the author and supporters of this Bill. It's been made clear in this Committee that we need action at the state level to address pet overpopulation, and the best way to achieve this is all of the stakeholders working together. I'm happy to support this resolution today. Thanks so much. And I'm sure there will be an opportunity to add on as co-authors on the floor of the Assembly. And Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

The motion is to be adopted and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman? Berman aye. Flora? Flora aye. Alanis? Alvarez? Alvarez aye. Bains? Bains aye. Bonta? Bonta aye. Chen? Chen aye. Dixon? Gipson? Gipson aye. Grayson? Grayson aye. Irwin? Irwin aye. Jackson? Jackson aye. Lee? Lee aye. Lowenthal? Lowenthal aye. McCarty? McCarty aye. Mckinnor? McKinnor aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Patterson? Ting? Ting aye.

That resolution is out. Congratulations. Thank you, Senator Laird, for your patience. You have Agenda Item number 6, SB 508. You have a motion by the Vice Chair. You have a bipartisan motion and second. Senator?

I appreciate the hint, Mr. Chair.

I thought it was subtle.

And so let me just say that this Bill would streamline the review process related to cannabis with CEQA. Two CEQA's are required on the same project. This would reduce it to one.

I got a similar Bill out of Committee last year. We couldn't get it done. There's a lot of late support that wasn't included in the analysis and I'll just acknowledge it. I do have Sally Nocito here. Sarah Nocito here in support from the Origins Council. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and please go ahead with primary witness testimony and support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I will be brief. Sarah Nocito testifying in support of SB 508 on behalf of Origins Council, which represents over 800 licensed small and independent cannabis businesses in rural producing counties throughout California. Origins Council has been engaged with the Legislature on CEQA-related cannabis policy issues since our founding in 2019. Since that time, provisionally licensed cannabis operators statewide have been facing ongoing licensing insecurity and cyclical, industry-threatening crises.

This is all due to the state mandate for site-specific CEQA review of every single commercial cannabis licensing project in California. This is an abnormal application of CEQA. Fundamental tools for regulatory efficiency authorized under CEQA for every other industry are denied to cannabis licensing applicants and the local and state agencies that regulate them. Ministerial licensing is off the table. Local General plans and existing zoning code for commercial agricultural activity is also off the table.

This disruption to the normal CEQA process flow for commercial cannabis activity has a system wide negative impact on licensing. A significant portion of our membership is experiencing timelines of many months for the Department of Cannabis Control to review locally-certified CEQA documentation and issue annual licensure. As of this morning, state licensing data reflects that half of the provisionally licensed cannabis businesses in the State of California still have not achieved annual licensure.

The state environmental agencies who currently serve as CEQA responsible agencies for cannabis cultivation licensing projects, and who would continue to do so under this Bill, have both the capacity and the expertise to do it well. SB 508 proposes an urgently needed efficiency to the state licensing process without undermining environmental review and protections. I want to thank Senator Laird for bringing this issue forward and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Come on up. You'll have two minutes each, either there or at the desk, whichever you prefer.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm representing Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society. These organizations, along with other conservation organizations who supported SB 64, respectfully oppose this bill, and at the outset, I would like to thank Senator Laird for his many years of leadership in the environment, and our organizations do not oppose this bill lightly. Let me just say that, but we do have a fundamental disagreement about the application of CEQA in this circumstance.

In this case, the Department of Cannabis Control is acting as a responsible agency, which is not an unusual thing. There is a category called Responsible Agencies. It is not duplicative review. There's a purpose for why those agencies do have oversight over a lead agency. There are four reasons why we oppose SB 508 as drafted, and I'll just note, I'm the only primary witness, so if I go a little over, I hope it's okay.

A little over.

I'm going to be really fast. So SB 508 violates this negotiation--in 2001--in which, in the Cannabis Trailer Bill Compromise in which environmental groups agreed to extend the life of CEQA exemptions for provisional licenses within agreement that the Department of Cannabis Control would do the review to ensure that environmental issues are addressed.

Two: cannabis businesses, especially cultivation, do cause significant environmental impact. Part of the reason why Prop 64 included environmental protections is because of the amount of damage from illegal and even legal growths can have impacts to water quality, air, and wildlife, and so there is a point as to why we want the oversight with Department of Cannabis Control.

Also, number three, when voters approved Prop 64, they were told that the cannabis businesses must follow strict environmental safeguards to protect the environment, including application of CEQA. This bill makes the department's CEQA review as a responsible agency optional only, and finally, it sets bad precedent that CEQA requirements for responsible agencies can be optional and not required.

And so this has been--responsible agency has been on the books for 50 years. It's used in many other instances, and again, we don't believe that this is duplicative. We think this is important, and finally, I would just simply say that there is lag time in moving from provisional licenses to regular licenses, but the problem has not been Department of Cannabis Control review.

It has been that the local agencies have had a very difficult time conducting their CEQA analysis. So that's where the holdup is and we do believe that is important for DCC to continue to have responsible agency authority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses? So there aren't any more primary witnesses in opposition, so we're going to go to add on in support of the bill. Folks who want to add their name, organization they're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Rand Martin on behalf of the Parent Company in very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alicia Priego on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, also Kiva Confections, in support.

Thank you.

Ada Waelder on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in strong support.

Thank you.

Nick Romo on behalf of the City of Desert Hot Springs in support.

Thank you.

Talia D'Amato on behalf of California NORML consumers as well as STIIIZY in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks who want to add on in opposition to the bill?

Good morning. My name is Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, as well as Trout Unlimited, California Trout, the California Coastal Protection Network, Planning and Conservation League, and the Environmental Protection Information Center in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to Colleagues for questions or comments. I've got a Assembly Member Alvarez then Assembly Member Gipson.

Thank you. Thank you all. Senator, question on the issue of the CEQA review, the current status of applicants. I heard--I think the testimony said that roughly half--correct me on the numbers--but have had the completed review by both the local agency and the department. Is that currently--

To be honest, the department would have to answer the precise situation. It is probably in that ballpark.

Okay. And in response to the--

But let me add one thing because that does not characterize who's in that, and the real distinction here right now is the big ones that have resources are going through the process. The small ones are the ones that are being pushed out.

If we don't fix the system, this pushes small cannabis growers out of the system, and I happen to represent the legacy Big Sur cannabis growers in my district, and they are struggling. They are on the edge of not having a window to move here and that is--it's who is in those numbers is as important as what the numbers are.

And they currently have a provisional? Is that what it is? Provisional?

Yes.

And that expires when?

It's coming up, but I don't know the precise date.

Okay. As far as your intent from your presentation and from what I read in the analysis and from your statement, you're not looking to eliminate CEQA by any means. You're looking to allow the local agency to perform CEQA and not require the applicant to go through a second round of CEQA from the department?

That's correct, and to add, given some of the testimony, and I wish the Department of Cannabis Control was here to speak to it directly, they still do look at the CEQA if it's not them that is performing it. This is not them walking away from it. They are involved in it, and I have really pushed some of the parties that are in opposition to the fact that: this is a crisis; give me an alternative.

And if in fact, an alternative is to do CEQA at whatever the best representative level is and the one most completed to the extent we could determine that in statute, I'm open to that. The real issue here is to both do the environmental review and make sure it's done, but not do it repeatedly in a way that it drives the small people out of the business.

Right. Thank you for explaining that.

Thank you. Assembly Member Gipson.

Thank you very much. Senator, I want to say thank you very much for bringing this thoughtful piece of legislation before us. I want to be considered as a co-author of the bill, so if you would be so kind to add me as a co-author of the bill, and I just want to support you regarding making sure that the small cannabis industry stays intact.

This is what's driving them out, and this is what is elevating the black market, those illegal cannabis operators to come in and proliferate our community, our city. I was to go so far as to say, even in the City of Compton, where I represent, illegal cannabis operator continue to be there. So what the city did, they took a bulldozer and knocked down the building so they won't have to operate.

And so we applaud them for taking those kinds of actions because this market is basically getting out of control, and the illegal, illicit market is the one who is dominating. So again, thank you very much for your leadership and look forward to seeing this bill progress.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Any additional questions or comments from Colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. I really appreciate the debate, and I am open to working on this if it meets the intent of the bill. That is the important thing, and earlier today, and I was looking around--there's at least two people--I presented another bill that tries to deal with the black market and the water board's ability to not have to notify people 24 hours in advance when joining with law enforcement to come in because all these things have to work together. So I appreciate the debate. If there's a need to, I would continue to work on the bill, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird, for trying to tackle this very complicated issue and your openness to different ways to accomplish the goal, and I know that there will be more robust discussion of this bill in Natural Resources Committee. So in the meantime, I'm happy to support the bill here today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 508: Laird. The motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources.' Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Flora? Aye. Flora, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Bains? Aye. Bains, aye. Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Dixon? Gipson? Aye. Gipson, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McCarty? McKinnor? Aye. McKinnor, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Patterson? Ting? Aye. Ting, aye.

Senator Allen, are you here to present on Senator Laird's bill? That bill is out. Your bill is out, Senator Laird. Thank you very much. Senator Allen, it's an honor to have you present Agenda Item Number Two: SB 285.

It's good to see you, Mr. Chair. So you've seen a similar Bill, Assemblymember Haney's Bill, which is slightly more expansive, earlier. So you know that under existing law, many local jurisdictions are allowed to authorize the smoking, vaping, ingesting of cannabis and cannabis products on the premises of a licensed retailer or a microbusiness, which is what's called a cannabis consumption lounge.

But the current state regulations prevent these lounges from preparing and selling freshly made food and beverages, even if their local jurisdiction would otherwise allow them to. Right now, they're limited to prepackaged items like candy or bottled water.

So this Bill seeks to change that by allowing local jurisdictions to permit it if they want to, if they feel as though local conditions would recommend that these freshly made items would be non-cannabis infused, nonalcoholic, essentially the kind of things you might find in, some sort of cooked food, burger, fries, something like that. This is required, costly.

The current situation is required costly and cumbersome workarounds for cannabis lounges to provide their guests with the expected experience by either taking out two different property leases or having food items delivered in from outside vendors. And so to address this, the Bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow these lounges to prepare and serve fresh-made items, while additionally extending the ability to sell prepackaged items to other cannabis retailers, though I think we're going to be dropping that portion.

The Bill does not legalize indoor smoking, as existing statute provides locals with the ability to authorize operation of consumption areas already. The Bill concerns nothing beyond providing local authorities with this decision making power with regards to food and beverage sales. So the Bill has broad bipartisan support and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Do you have any primary witnesses in support of the Bill?

I don't think so.

Okay. Seeing none. Primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill. You'll have two minutes each.

Good morning, Members and Chair. I'm Tim Gibbs with the American Lung Association. And as a key player in the battles that took place in the 1990s to prohibit smoking in workplaces, and in particular bars and restaurants, we must stand up again 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 cannabis lounges to essentially become a restaurant, and that would be adding an entire new layer of employees to be exposed to toxins in the workplace. And let's be clear, I mean, secondhand marijuana smoke, much like tobacco smoke, is dangerous. Smoke is smoke, and anytime it enters your lungs, it's bad for you. We've heard no one in this debate over this Bill make the case that secondhand cannabis smoke is not dangerous.

Secondhand cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances and toxic chemicals as secondhand tobacco smoke. Some of the known carcinogens or toxins present in Marijuana smoke include aacetaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, formaldehyde, and many others. So turning a cannabis business into a restaurant would put kitchen staff, servers, and many other types of workers at risk. Do we really want to go back to the days of forcing workers to serve food 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.

Thank you very much. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Berman, Members. I'm Dr. Lynn Silver, Pediatrician, Senior Advisor at the Public Health Institute, Professor at UCSF, and a member of the Prop. 64 Advisory Group.

We deeply oppose this Bill for two reasons. First, as Tim mentioned, smoke-free air is one of our 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. The scientific evidence is crystal clear. While it is different, cannabis smoke is not safer and is quite possibly worse than tobacco smoke.

SB 285 will fundamentally undermine that progress by bringing back smoke-filled restaurants and bar-like environments, thereby exposing far more workers, including pregnant women, more extensively to harmful secondhand cannabis smoke. Second, as astutely noted by Mr. Sumner. In his analysis, this Bill will allow cannabis retailers to become grocers and 21 plus food stores to be cannabis retailers. This trivializes the significant mental and physical health risks of today's smörgåsbord of ultra high-potency cannabis.

It may also constitute a backdoor route to legalize sales of hemp-containing foods, which often have more THC than allowed in cannabis edibles and far weaker safety standards by cannabis retailers. In our state, daily cannabis use by adults has already tripled. Use during pregnancy has nearly doubled, exposing children to long term neurodevelopment, developmental harm. Cannabis ER visits are up 1800% in older adults. When we voted to legalize, we envisioned not sending people to jail, not making cannabis retailers the place to stop and get a Coke.

Ending criminalization is positive. Going backwards on smoke-free air and trivializing cannabis health risks is not. Please protect future generations from secondhand smoke and keep cannabis a legal but specialized business. Please vote nay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to move to any 'me too,' in support of the Bill. Anybody wants to add on in support of SB 285, provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Mr. Chair and Members, Rand Martin on behalf of the Parent Company, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alicia Priego on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, in support.

Thank you. Anybody want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Come on up. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih in respectful opposition on behalf of the American Heart Association.

Thank you. Bringing back to colleagues, questions or comments. Assembly Member Bonta?

Thank you. Senator Allen, can you just dive in a little bit to the slippery slope argument that the opposition is offering and just give us kind of a practical application of this? If there is a cannabis shop, essentially the purpose of that lounge is to go in and smoke, correct?

That's absolutely right. I invite folks to go to page two of your analysis that talks about how under the current, the status quo, the current law authorizes a local jurisdiction to allow for these cannabis lounges. The folks that are working there have chosen to go work at a cannabis lounge where smoking is happening, and the current law allows for the sale of food. It's just that it's packaged food. We're talking about cannabis lounges. It's not Applebee's.

One of the challenges that we've had here is I think that the opposition, who I respect a great deal, just fundamentally has a problem with cannabis lounges and places where people can smoke and where people work, where smoking is happening. And I'm certainly happy to look at additional language that would make it so that we can, if people want to tighten it up and ensure that there's no possible slippery slope toward restaurants, I'm happy to take in that kind of language. I'm open to suggestions.

I think the challenge that we've had is that the, the folks in the opposition have just have a fundamental disagreement with having these kinds of institutions because, you know, they, they have legitimate concerns about the ingestion of any type of smoke. But we're talking very specifically about cannabis lounges here where food is already allowed to be sold. It would just allow it, instead of prepackaged, it would be allowed for fresh food.

That's literally all that's happening here. And by the way, it wouldn't make a unilateral permission. It would allow local governments to allow for the sale of this type of food. But as I say, if there's more language we can use to tighten up so as to ensure that people feel really comfortable that there's no possible bleed over to restaurants, I'm so happy to take that language.

But we're fitting this into the Business Professions Code, which is outlined item eight on page two of your analysis, which specifies what a cannabis consumption lounge is. And that's all this Bill impacts.

And is it possible, through the Chair, is it possible to have a cannabis lounge exist in a restaurant right now as like a back room or some kind of separated entity?

I don't believe so. I think you'd have to get a totally different permit. It'd have to be a different company, different business. There's actually a great deal of sensitivity about this because of all the issues that, you know, that, that the opposition have raised. And, and by the way, let me also mention, children were brought up, and that's obviously a deep concern that I have and others.

One of the many very rock hard restrictions associated with cannabis lounge is that you cannot be under 21 and enter a cannabis lounge. You can't even walk in. So it's my understanding that it cannot be incorporated into an existing restaurant. It has to be a totally different business. But if there's any ambiguity or any loophole that people come up with on that point, I'm happy to take some additional language into the Bill to specify and really concretize, because I agree, I don't want this to be something that bleeds into the restaurant industry.

So I'm going to go Assembly Member Lowenthal, Assembly Member Alvarez, Assembly Member McKinnor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of questions for both support and opposition, and then I may come back with some comments a little bit later. So first of the opposition, I'd like to ask, is there any scenario where you could support this Bill, in other words, and not as written currently- In other words, you focused on the safety of workers completely and not necessarily on the restaurant component. Are there any provisions that could be changed that would increase worker safety?

So, for example, ventilation, an outdoor component, measuring and creating metrics around what is actually happening in the lounge itself. Is there any type of measuring component that you would consider or anything here? And the last question I would ask you is, have you had any direct conversation with the author on this topic?

Tim Gibbs with the American Lung Association. I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we have talked with the author's office about the issue. In terms of any amendments that could bring us into support. No.

I mean, there's certainly things we could probably do that would make us neutral. For example, if we were only talking about edibles, and I'm only speaking for the American Lung Association, I can't speak for the rest of the coalition, but that would bring us into neutrality.

And nothing about an outdoor versus indoor, requiring a certain amount of ventilation, about any measuring. See, one of the things that concerns me is that you talk about carcinogens that exist in cannabis.

But I don't really understand from that whether or not second hand smoke from cigarettes is exactly the same as second hand smoke from cannabis. I don't know what the impacts are, based on the testimony that you provided. I'd like to understand that a little bit better. Is there any research that's been done on that? Is there any conclusive research that distinguishes, that says that cannabis secondhand smoke is as deadly as tobacco secondhand smoke?

Thank you, Assembly Member Lowenthal and Assembly Member Bonta. First, I just wanted to start briefly with the question from Assembly Member Bonta, which is that it does create restaurants, restaurants that are limited to people who are 21 and over. But when you serve food and prepare food, that is a restaurant environment. Why are we concerned? In answer to your question, there is good and emerging evidence on cannabis smoke.

It shows, for example, that it impedes cardiac endothelial cells for 90 seconds after just 1 minute of exposure longer than tobacco smoke does. It interferes with placental function. It has four and a half times the amount of particulate matter of cigarette smoke. We don't have as long a period of study as we do for tobacco smoke, so many of the longer analyses of health impacts are not as clear. We do know that ventilation does not work.

The National Society of ASHRAE, the Society of Ventilation and Heating Engineers, has long had a very clear position that ventilation cannot adequately

on cannabis?

Their current, most recent update talks about smoke.

Yeah, it's very concerning to me that- Okay, it's very concerning to me that we are talking about smoke versus cannabis smoke or tobacco smoke, because the rules that we have right now are about tobacco smoke. And so now we're making rules, potentially rules in regards to cannabis smoke. And what I'm hearing from you is we don't have adequate research right now that there are some of the components are present, but we don't have adequate research. Is that correct?

We have sufficient research to be extremely concerned.

Be concerned?

And Proposition 64 noted that smoking should not be allowed in places where tobacco smoking was not allowed, with the exception of locally approved onsite consumption lounges, which was in Proposition 64.

Which did not serve food, correct?

Which did not serve food. And the service of food was something that was put into regulation, not law, which we opposed. We have spoken to the author's office, but we did not find changes that could make this acceptable to public health.

And then I also have a question for the Senator. Can tobacco be smoked in a cannabis lounge?

No.

Under any circumstances, can a hookah be smoked in a cannabis lounge today?

No. The rules are very strict, actually. It's only cannabis, only cannabis smoking that can take place in a lounge.

And why is that?

It's just the way things were structured. As, you know, coming out of the Proposition. We've been really tight about the rules for a lot of good reasons, many of which have been articulated here. And every time you try and make a little change, it's hard, and it should be okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Lowenthal. Senator Alvarez.

Thank you. And I want to thank my colleague from Long Beach for questions that I had intended to ask, specifically on the data. I think the opposition raises concerns, which definitely catch my attention, but I'd be interested in seeing more data on what the second hand smoke of cannabis means to people's health. So I still think, would like to see that going forward.

But specifically today, I think after those questions were asked, my only remaining question is related to, and it's pretty clear, and as Senator pointed out in page two of our analysis, business and profession code identify exactly what's allowed and what's not allowed, and alcohol and tobacco is not. And this doesn't change that. Cannabis consumption is not visible from any public place or non age-restricted area. This does not change that. And access to the area where cannabis consumption is allowed is restricted to people who are 21 years of age or older. This has not changed that either.

The one question that I have, though, is with the sale of food, what I don't see in the current code is, do you have to be a consumer of either smoking or edibles of cannabis in order to be able to consume the food as well? Or can you go in and only consume the food? Because then that starts to sound a little bit more like a restaurant as opposed to a lounge with the possibility to consume food while you're there.

So that's the only question that's not clear to me. Senator, if you could help me understand.

Yeah, I don't think that the rules specify it's a pretty pricey place to go buy food, typically, but I don't think it specifies.

Yeah, I don't feel strongly in one way or the other. I just want to make sure that we understand what the intent is and that it's very clear. And so if those questions arise for any of us, that we're able to answer that question. So appreciate that, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez. Assembly Member McKinnor, and then Assembly Dixon.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.

So sorry, Senator. The one concern, I guess I would say, is what if a bunch of friends, just like at a bar, right? A bunch of friends go out, one of them isn't drinking or not in this case, one isn't smoking, but wants to be able to eat with their friends because they're going to be driving. So that's one thing I just want to throw out there when we're considering this. Anyhow. Sorry.

Yes, Senator. I would just think that this is like, equivalent to like, a cigar bar or cigar lounge. Right? Like, you go to a cigar lounge with your friends. I don't smoke cigars, which I only been once because I can't take it. But you go to a cigar bar lounge with your friends. They smoke cigars, they serve snacks and food. And it's not a restaurant, it's a cigar bar. And people go there strictly to smoke cigars. And inside, by the way.

So I would think this is kind of like a cigar bar, where most people aren't going if they're not participating or if they don't like it, they don't go. But that's how I kind of think of this. It's not a restaurant. It's literally a cigar lounge.

Yeah, that's exactly how we're thinking about it. And I guess this conversation is making me think, is there some way to. I don't know. This is the tricky thing, right.

How do you restrict the amount of food that's being served, but in a way that's not dumb? I'm really happy to consider alternatives and ideas, but I think, Assembly Member, that's exactly what we're talking about here. That's a great analogy.

Thank you. Assembly Member McKinnor, any other questions? Thanks so much. Assembly Member Dixon, and then Patterson and then Bains and then maybe Alanis. So I've got Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Quick question. I think this is- Somebody used a word a moment ago about a slippery slope. So before we know, we'll be sitting here a year from now in the next session, and then some other kind of restaurant or retail food service, 711, will be- The door is opening to allow more types of these kinds of services. What about the Doordash type service? Uber Dash where, whatever it's called, Uber delivery service.

So if someone wants to send Uber to pick up supply of the pre packaged food and some cannabis related food, is that permitted- Under this Bill, would that be permitted?

Zero, could people have DoorDash delivered to the lounge?

Yes.

Yes, and then they're allowed to now, by the way,

From the lounge to home, the food items, could they be delivered to home?

Oh, could they be a retailer for food production? Gosh, I would certainly be willing to take language to prohibit that if-

Because that's kind of a workaround to retail shops that local governments have the option.

That's not a bad idea. Once again, that's not something we want to. That's not what we're trying to.

So I think you just have to think of every possible avenue where there's a little gap here or there that people, innovative entrepreneurs, will think of how to get this into a broader audience.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea to incorporate.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Assembly Member Patterson.

Yeah, thank you. Just a comment, I think. You know, I don't like the idea of consumption sites in general. I think if there was one place in my community, I would personally fight it. That said, I think if we're having a consumption site where people can consume, my preference is they're actually eating something, just like at a bar, something like that. The preference is that people can eat something and so they're not leaving on an empty stomach.

I am in no way a supporter of consumption sites, but I'm just trying to think responsibly about people that are doing something that's legal, whether we agree with it or not, and they are leaving intoxicated and they're unable to eat any food. I have serious concerns about that. I'm more concerned about lives on the road, people driving after ingesting cannabis, and having nothing in their stomach. I would probably support something to even put constraints on consumption sites existing at all.

I don't see the public need for that, per se. But we're not arguing that right now. These exist. There's a lot of local control, in my personal city, when we approved our ordinance on cannabis, we approved all commercial uses of cannabis that we were able to, except for deliveries, because of the Bureau's determination on that. But, so, I am consistent in opposing these types of facilities.

But since they are open, I want to actually encourage people to eat and have something in their stomach and not endanger lives on the road, not coming into my community intoxicated, because we know that, unfortunately, we know some of that stuff is going to happen just like it does at bars. So I'm kind of leaning towards supporting this right now.

Actually, in this Committee, I opposed a similar measure, and then when it got onto the floor, I ended up supporting it because I really thought twice about that situation where people are going to leave intoxicated. I'm very interested in more information on the differences between cannabis smoke and cigarette smoke, for sure.

The state's got, it's against public policy to encourage people to smoke cigarettes because we know, or studies say the effects that that can have, and I don't know if that's the same case with cannabis or not, but I think that's sort of a separate discussion aside from this Bill. So I'm interested in more discussion, but that's kind of where I'm leaning right now. So thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Dr. Bains.

I've heard a lot of ridiculous comments being made, and as a Doctor, I want to make one thing clear. Smoking is smoking, and it is harmful to your health. Whether it's Marijuana or tobacco, smoking is smoking, and it is harmful to your health. And I have a big concern that the top three killers in America are heart disease, cancer, and lung disease. And you have all three associations opposed to this Bill. There's something we're missing here. I'm absolutely opposed to this Bill.

Thank you, Dr. Bains. Any additional questions or comments? I know Mr. Lowenthal is going to have a comment. Let me just ask a quick question, Mr. Lowenthal, if that's all right, before. Senator, I believe I heard you say you're not trying to create restaurants that allow cannabis smoking. Can you explain a little bit how this doesn't do that? Because it seems to me like it does.

I mean, if you've got a kitchen in the back and they're cooking pub food and they're providing that to their patrons, can you just help me explain a little bit how that's not a restaurant or this is something that you should consider moving forward?

So I think Senator Patterson did a great job of explaining, I think, walking through some of the challenges here. We have, for better, for worse, authorized cities to authorize these consumption lounges. That's in the law. They're happening right now. There are very strict rules associated with the creation and the implementation and management of these lounges. Certainly folks want to take a look at that section of code and continue to work in that space. Obviously, everyone's welcome to do so.

At the end of the day, food is allowed to be sold there. But I think part of what brought me to this story was much of what Assembly Member Patterson was raising, was that in the end of the day, if people are going to be going and using these kinds of sites, you want them to have the option of, you want to actually have them eating, it's safer for everybody.

I think something that, like what Assembly Member Dixon brought up, making it very clear that you can't turn around and try to retail your food and use DoorDash to sell your food elsewhere. That would be a good example. I'm certainly very open to taking some additional suggestions like yours, Assembly Member, that would make not only the Committee, but me feel more comfortable that we're not creating a slippery slope toward restaurants.

I mean, I will say the code, it's very particular, and it's all about the creation of these lounges, and that's the space of code where we're working. So in the end of the day, this is a question of cost benefit analysis. I think that the benefits outweigh the concerns and negatives associated with this particular Bill.

But look, I was thinking just today- On the one hand, obviously, I don't love to have opposition to a Bill, especially, when it's so hard for us to come to any agreement because you have such a fundamental disagreement with anything involving smoking, which I respect and I think is important for us to grapple with.

I do think it's important for you to come in and oppose bills like this, not because I don't want to see the Bill passed today, but because I do want it to be hard for us to try to expand access to these kinds of services when there are so many health implications. I do think that under the current circumstances, if we're going to have these things open, we ought to have food being sold.

But to be clear, they can buy food currently. You can get prepackaged food, and you can order in food from the outside via delivery service. So it's important to note that you can currently eat food in a consumption lounge.

So just want to make sure that everyone understands.

That's true.

That's absolutely right. But I do think that doing something like what Senator Dixon has suggested would be good in terms of really creating that very clear distinction. And I'm open to other suggestions.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Lowenthal has a comment, and then Mr. Alvarez has some follow up.

Yeah. First of all, I just want to know, I have been truly undecided on this and to the ire of my staff who wanted a more clear answer going into this hearing, and I really wanted to hear the testimony. This is a tough one. Very, very tough one in regards to the slippery slope of a restaurant, I'm a restaurant owner. I have zero concern about this at all. The Bill is written so that local jurisdictions can make those determinations. Of course, it's going to be restaurants.

These are going to be restaurants. They're going to be subjected to the Health Department codes, to inspections, to all of the things associated with the licensing of restaurants on a local level, whenever you're serving food and preparing food, that is going to be the situation. But I personally don't have any issues with that whatsoever. And my colleague from Rockland, I think, pointing out that food does go with cannabis. Food goes with cannabis, everybody. I don't think there's any surprise about that whatsoever.

And as a matter of fact, for my colleague from Kern county, who made very, very appropriate, sobering comments about smoke, which I appreciate so much that she did. I would also like to add, of course, that cannabis can be prescribed to patients who need to increase their appetite, as a matter of fact, who may be suffering from cancer or other disease, and we should recognize that as well. I very much support the idea of having consumption sites.

I very much support the idea of supporting the cannabis industry, the legal cannabis industry, in the State of California, the largest cash crop we have in our state, and the potential for huge economic growth, especially as the federal laws relax. We have the ability to export and so forth. And I think it's vitally important that we recognize safe consumption sites are a benefit and not a bad thing. But the one thing that we're holding back on is what the opposition has come here to testify for.

This is about worker safety. It's not about, for me, it's not about restaurants and a slippery slope of restaurants and impeding on the business of restaurants. It's about the workers who need to be there to prepare food, the cooks, the servers, the cleaners, the people who are doing all of the things to abide by those. I would like to ask the author and the opposition to work together to try and find ways that we can measure that safety.

And the reason I say that is because, even though my colleague from Kern County did say smoke is smoke is smoke, as a bar and restaurant owner that went through the process of getting rid of cigarette smoke in our places, it's not the same. The way that a cigarette is smoked or a cigar is smoked, versus the way that cannabis is, is different. You don't sit and smoke a pack of cannabis cigarettes in the matter of hours the way that you would with cigarettes.

You don't with cigars the same way, you could be in a cannabis lounge, as you noted, and ingest the cannabis, or vape the cannabis, which may be completely different. And what I'm sitting here struggling with is a lack of data and a lack of ability to measure these things. And I think that the comments of the opposition are vitally important. We can't allow for workplaces, even if somebody chooses to work there. You can choose to work in a coal mine.

You can choose to work in a lot of places. It's our responsibility to make sure that workers are safe. But there is no attempt here at all to try and measure what actually is safe and what's not. Where's the line? Why aren't we deciding what that line is and then trying to figure out what we do from there? It's very black or white. I don't think it should be. That's my comment.

I would like to support the Bill today, vote for it today, and highly encourage both sides to work on this issue together and try and come up with a system where we're measuring. And if we cross the line that we've determined together, then we stop it, because worker safety is the most important thing here for me. But if we can achieve worker safety, some worker safety here, then that's a reason to have this for me.

And, Senator, if I may, if it's helpful to you, we actually have started those conversations with folks from UFCW to talk about this very issue. And that's one question. Let's say, for the food preparers, how do you maintain a certain distance or certain set of standards to ensure that they're not having access to the smoke? That's something we're engaged in conversation. But I certainly would love suggestions.

I, you know, even as opposition, you know, would obviously be very unlikely to ever support the Bill or even come off of opposition. Certainly we're open to suggestions to address the worker safety issues for the preparers. I think for the folks that are walking around as part of their job, that's trickier, right? I mean, these are folks that have chosen to work at a cannabis consumption lounge.

But even then, we got to be looking at the data so we can take reasonable mitigation measures to ensure we're protecting their health in a reasonable way, too. And I think part of the challenge is, to defend them, this is a new experiment in many respects, and we do need more scientific study, and I'm sure part of the challenge is that there's not enough research in general on this topic.

And so you're having to extrapolate from a lot of the tobacco-related research, which, of course, is.

Thank you. Senator Alvarez.

Thank you, and I just want to say I'm asking a lot of questions because I'm not familiar with the restaurant industry. I'm definitely not a medical professional or someone who understands the issues related to smoke, but I do recognize that smoke, and even I recall reading stories about, like, barbecue smoke and how long exposure to that could also cause respiratory issues and is linked to things like cancer. And so I think there's something to be said about attempting to protect workers, which I think I recognize as well.

I just wanted to make the comment that being consistent with, as I attempt to always be, with Mr. Haney's Bill, which is very similar to your Bill, it actually goes a little bit further than your Bill. I will support this today, but I also would appreciate, and I'll share the same with my colleague, Mr. Haney, more information about how can we- It's very clear, Senator, and knowing my colleague, you're intending to do this the best way possible.

And so for me, can we get more information about the exposure to workers, I think would be really helpful going forward. And maybe on the issue of if these are going to become restaurants, maybe there's an issue of the percentage of sales so that it's predominantly a lounge, which I assume, not being a consumer of that either, I assume that's where the money is to be made.

So I don't know why anybody would sell more food than cannabis, but I don't know, maybe from a local perspective, as someone who's been in local office, I think that's important for locals to really understand what this would mean to them if they were to allow it.

And then the last thing I'll say, which is not really in your Bill, but related, just generally, is if anyone who is engaged, and I should have said this with our previous bills related to cannabis, but with activity that's illicit or black market, I think we also need to identify more penalties and stricter rules about losing licenses and things like that. Again, nothing very specific to your Bill, but certainly something I think we need to address as we talk about other issues.

But again, to be consistent, I didn't have the chance, oftentimes we're presenting bills somewhere else, when bills are in committees, to have this kind of a discussion with Mr. Haney's Bill. But I think I look at both bills the same way, and for that reason, I move the Bill, if it hasn't been moved. I encourage the work to continue and look forward to hearing back from you all. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Dr. Bains?

Yeah, I just wanted to address some more comments that were made. Let me try to educate you guys on smoking. Use my medical expertise, because you have a room full of medical experts that are concerned with this. So let me explain this to you what happens when a person smokes? Person smokes, there's damage that happens to the lining of the lungs. When there's damage that happens to the lining of the lungs, cells replicate.

In that process that cells replicate, they often lose and create this cancerous type of effect on the lungs. That is what we're experiencing. It's the insult of the act of smoking, regardless of what it is that you're smoking that is causing these high rates of cancer in our community. Same thing with heart disease. It creates insult on the endo- We were just discussing this. The doctor was just discussing this. It creates insult on the endothelial lining of the blood vessels.

When that happens, plaques get the platelets and plaque gets attached to that. So then you have a thrombus, that creates a heart attack. So regardless, there is an insult that happens. So regardless of where everyone is at with the Bill, that's fine, but don't make comments that there are types of smoking that are healthy and types of smoking that are not healthy. I want to make it very clear smoking is not healthy. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Bains. Assumption Member Bonta.

Just appreciate those comments and also just want to recenter us around this particular Bill. Cannabis lounges exist. They've already been something that we've statutorily indicated are allowed to exist in this State of California, regardless of how we feel about the impact on our lungs. Maybe a different Bill, separate issue. Happy to bring that up for others to be able to do that.

But I did want to just make sure that, Senator Allen, you have an opportunity to refocus our energy around the intent of this Bill, because we actually didn't get to hear more about why- You did talk a little bit about why you wanted to do this Bill, but just wanted to get us refocused.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I'll ask the Senator to save that for his close. Any additional questions or comments? That's perfect. It's time for your close. Senator Allen.

I genuinely appreciate the robust discussion we've had. I think a lot of issues have been raised, and obviously, there's a lot of concern about nearly every aspect of the implementation of legalized cannabis in the state. And those are all legitimate conversations to have, and I encourage you to continue to have them here in this Committee and elsewhere.

As Assembly Member said, this Bill is focused on one very particular aspect of the current utilization of cannabis, that is, these cannabis consumption lounges, which are explicitly authorized under Section 26 200 G of the Business Professions Code, allowing a local jurisdiction to authorize these lounges. And now under this Bill, we would authorize the local government to allow for fresh food to be served in those jurisdictions. That's all this Bill does.

But I will say it's good for us to have a hard conversation even when a relatively small, simple, surgical Bill comes up because of all the big picture issues that are at play. And you don't want to make it too easy to expand the scope of this type of business because of all the health issues that are legitimately raised by the opposition and our colleague. But I do thank you for recognizing how small and surgical this is.

And I do certainly am very interested in working with the opposition, Members of the Committee and others to figure out more ways to keep it constrained. I like the idea of Assembly Member Dixon. There's another issue raised with regards to food prep, and that's why we're engaged in conversations with UFCW, but certainly open to more conversation and suggestions on that because I'm worried about the worker safety issues as well.

But thank you for recognizing how narrow this Bill is, and it's in that spirit and a commitment to continue working on these tricky, dicey issues that I asked for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator and I think there's a debate as to how narrow this Bill is. You heard from some colleagues- I think it's your assertion that this Bill does not create restaurants. You've heard from some colleagues who say, well, this Bill obviously creates restaurants. And I think that's something that you need to really think about if this Bill moves forward, because to be honest, I lean more towards my colleagues who say, obviously this Bill creates restaurants.

If you're cooking food on site and you're serving that food to your customers, I don't know how that's not a restaurant.

Maybe the percentage of sales issues.

Lots of important things to consider. You know, Assembly Member Haney's Bill has been brought up. The opposition wasn't opposed when Senator Haney's Bill was heard in BNP. The opposition came onto the Bill after BNP and before GO. And so we didn't have the benefit of some of that information and some of the concerns that were raised when we heard Assembly Member Haney's Bill in BNP. And so this is a bit of a different conversation because we've gotten more information, which is a part of the legislative process.

So I think that a lot of legitimate concerns have been raised today. I know that you've heard them. We've been friends for a very long time, and I know how seriously you take your bills, and I know that you've heard the concerns that were raised by opposition and by Members. I'm going to support the Bill today. I also have the benefit of voting for it again when it comes to GO, which is where it will go next if it passes out of BNP.

And I know that the Senator will have a lot of conversations with the opposition and probably with some colleagues, and I'm happy to have those conversations as well if the Bill moves on. And I'll look forward to some improvements before the Bill gets to GO. But I think a lot of really important points have been raised on all sides today that should go into the consideration of the policy as the Bill moves forward.

So I'm happy to support the Bill and have an aye recommendation today, but we need a second. So I've got a motion by Assembly Member Alvarez. A second by Assembly Member Lowenthal. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 285 Allen. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Governmental Organization. [Roll call]

That Bill is out. I wish everyone luck on future conversations.

Thank you, Members. Thank you very much.

So now we need a Senator. We have a Senator. Senator Cortese, good to see you. Thank you for your patience, sir. Presenting agenda item number nine, SB 669.

Ready when you are, Senator.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, this may be a little less of a debate, but sometimes those are famous last words. Right? I do want to thank the chair and the staff for working with us on this Bill.

And the first thing I want to say is I will be accepting the Committee amendments as very simple as the Bill looks at times, even when I look at it, we did have to do a lot of work to try to find the spot we're in right now. So, again, I do appreciate it. The Bill represents the mutual goal of the California Veterinary Medical Association and the Registered Veterinary Technician Association.

So in one sense, it's rare that we see two professional groups who could easily appear before you with different views of how to solve a problem. But they jointly ask for your support in addressing an impending crisis. And some would argue it's an existing crisis, given the actual numbers we're looking at right now. This agreement speaks to the common sense nature of this critically important piece of legislation, and the concept really is pretty simple.

It gives veterinarians permission to let the registered veterinarian technicians, otherwise known as RVTs, to administer certain vaccines and medications. Specifically, the RVT would be allowed to establish a veterinarian client patient relationship, but for those limited purposes only, the benefits are twofold. A technician would be able to go out into the community and administer the permitted treatments to animals, including animals of the underrepresented and the unhoused. It also would allow a technician to establish a relationship in a clinical setting.

Crucially, this change in the clinical setting will lower the cost of getting your animal vaccinated, as well as allow veterinarians to do more complicated procedures, freeing them up. In other words, the need for this Bill is pressing. Due to competition for veterinarians and the accompanying increase in salaries, nonprofits across the state have been forced to curtail or close their Low or no cost vaccine clinics due to a lack of veterinarians. So a crisis is threatening our public health and safety.

Unvaccinated pets in California are pets that are at risk of catching and transmitting rabies and parvovirus. SB 669 will help solve this. I do have witnesses available to testify at your discretion, Mr. Chair, and I would turn it over to them and at the proper time, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And two minutes per primary witness in support.

...

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Dr. Grant Miller. I'm a veterinarian and the California Veterinary Medical Association's Director of Regulatory Affairs. I want to thank you for your time and consideration of SB 669 today with additional thanks to Senator Cortesi for championing the important causes set forth in the measure. The CBMA does have a support position on this Bill and feels that it sets a progressive national precedent that will help animal owners access needed veterinary care for their pets.

Access to veterinary care is a national issue that stems largely from surveys that show that one out of every four pet owning households cannot afford even the most basic care for their animals. And by basic care, we mean vaccinations, parasite control, and sick animal care. Studies also show unequivocally that the health of the family pets is linked to the family itself, and therefore ensuring that pets are vaccinated and provided parasite control medication can equate to improved public health.

SB 669 will help to address access to veterinarian care and improve public health by expanding the use of RVTs. As the Senator mentioned, this Bill will permit veterinarians to authorize RVTs to act as an agent on the veterinarian's behalf for the specific purposes of providing vaccinations and parasite control. We view this as a solution in which all parties can benefit, especially the animals. Again, thank you to the Senator, to Annabelle Smith of the Committee for working on the most recent amendments of this Bill.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote and support better access to veterinary care for California consumers. Also, I think we have the sponsor of the Bill here today, Kenn Altine, and he probably has comments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Altine.

Yes, thank you. Kenn Altine, CEO of the Sacramento SPCA. We vaccinate more than 20,000 animals a year. We really are the largest provider of Low cost veterinary care in Northern California, and the important thing to remember is everyone agrees. The VEt Medical Board, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the California Registered Veterinary Technicians Association, agree that we can and should expand the roles of these RVTs. They are trained to do this.

They've had more than two years of training, ongoing certification and existing codes already charge veterinarians with assessing the competencies of these RVTs to perform these tasks, including the vaccinations. The VMB specifies that a licensed vet can delegate the Administration of the Rabies vaccine to the RVT. The challenge has been Section 2031.1, which requires the establishment of the Veterinarian client patient relationship, the VCPR.

Again, everyone agrees that RVTs have the skills to create that VCPR and to do an Administration of limited range of prophylactics and vaccines, including the rabies vaccines, and only after following the explicit written order and protocols of a licensed veterinarian. That is absolutely consistent with federal law requiring a written or an oral order from a veterinarian for the Administration of a Controlled drug. We're not breaking new ground here.

California has already carved out three exceptions that allow RVTs to administer a controlled drug without a vet's order or a vEt's presence. In all three of those cases, the RVTs are required to follow established written protocols. SB 669 is consistent with this and calls for written orders and protocols for administering the rabies vaccine. So our RVTs know how to administer the rabies vaccine. They're trained to do it. They've been doing it safely for decades.

So I please ask you to vote yes on SB 669.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I believe we have primary witnesses in opposition or opposed unless amended or some variation of the sort.

Good morning, Committee chair and Members. My name is Jessica Seaforman. I'm the Executive officer of the Veterinary Medical Board. The board has an opposed, unless amended position on SB 669. The Board appreciates the intent of the Bill and the author's willingness to take some requested amendments. One of the most crucial issues with the Bill has not been addressed. The Board is especially concerned with ensuring compliance with controlled substance and dangerous drug prescription requirements.

Under existing federal and state law, only veterinarians can prescribe treatment to animal patients, which includes the controlled substances and dangerous drugs that would be administered by RVTs under the Bill as currently written, the Bill would authorize RVTs to administer medications to animals without examination or the required prescription by a veterinarian, since no medication can be administered without it first being prescribed.

This Bill would, in effect, authorize RVTs to prescribe medication and drugs to animal patients and result in inconsistencies with other provisions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice act that only authorize licensed veterinarians to prescribe the drugs and medications and specifically prohibit an RVT from prescribing drugs and medication. This Bill would violate federal and state prescription laws and put the RVT at risk of professional discipline, criminal conviction and civil litigation.

Accordingly, to ensure consistency with the Veterinary Medicine Practice act, compliance with federal and state law, and ensure consumer protection, the Bill must include the requirement for veterinarians to review documentation prior to prescribing or diSpensing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and Cal Animals in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm Barbara Schmitz, here on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA. We're in support, and we want to acknowledge the extra effort and time that the author put into this Bill. We're very appreciative of his commitment to the Bill. We think this is a really critical Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Nancy Ehrlich. I'm the advocate for the California Registered Veterinary Technicians Association, and we strongly support this Bill. And we feel that the practice act already allows RVTs to administer medications according to protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The one time I forget to do the reminder of name, organization and position on the Bill. Anybody? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Excuse me, we already have a primary witness. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the Bill who want to add on in opposition? Seeing none. Bring about her colleagues. Questions? Comments? Motion? Seconds? Have a motion by Senator Jackson. A second by Assembly Member Lee. Any questions? Comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Members, we do believe that we have strong supervision language in the Bill, but as we have all along, will continue to entertain any compelling recommendation to continue to work on that language. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you for your work on this important issue and for accepting the recommended amendment from a recommended amendment from the Veterinary Medical Board regarding client disclosure. I understand the board saw its concerns with the Bill and encourage you to continue working together and appreciate the goal of this Bill and its intentions to remove barriers in order to allow access to veterinary care for all. I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

SB 669. Cortese. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman aye. Flora aye. Alanis aye. Alvarez aye. Bains aye. Bonta aye. Chen aye. Dixon aye Gipson. Grayson aye. Irwin aye. Jackson aye. Lee aye. Lowenthal aye. Mccarty aye. Mckinnor aye. Min aye. Patterson aye. Ting.

That Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you, Senator. Senator Glazer, it is an honor and a privilege to be in your company twice in one morning, but we're going to do consent really quickly. So as you get set up, we're going to do the consent calendar. Okay? I got a motion. Second on consent. Got a motion. Got a second. Madam Secretary, please call a vote on consent.

On the consent calendar. Berman aye. Flora aye. Alanis aye. Alvarez aye. Bains aye. Bonta aye. Chen aye. Dixon aye Gipson. Grayson aye. Irwin aye. Jackson aye. Lee aye. Lowenthal aye. Mccarty aye. Mckinnor aye. Min aye. Patterson aye. Ting.

Consent calendars out. Senator Glazer, agenda item number 10, SB 683. Ready when you are. I don't think your mic is on, though.

Press here. There we go. It's working now. Chair Berman, can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir. I want to thank you for allowing me to present this Bill to you today. I want to thank the Committee staff for their excellent work on it. This Bill is almost identical to a Bill that the Chair brought to you earlier in the year. I'm sure that we've all experienced what this Bill tries to address, and that's thinking you're getting a hotel room or a short term rental at a certain fee price.

And then when you finally finish clicking through everything, you realize it's a lot more expensive. That some cases disclosed, in some cases nondisclosed, fees are added at the end. So I had the occasion to stay at a hotel a few days ago, and I learned some new fees that I hadn't even heard of. There was a civic fee in addition to the traditional resort fee, convention fee. There's an environmental fee at some of the hotels that I've stayed at anyway.

So we're trying to deal with that issue here by having proper disclosure. A recent study by the Federal Trade Commission found that resort fees that are mandatory and undisclosed in the posted room rate artificially increase the search costs and the cognitive costs for consumers. This Bill would require hotels, short-term rentals, and third party booking sites to display the total cost of the stay, inclusive of all extra fees, such as taxes, credit card fees, resort fees, and their advertised rate.

The Bill would improve consumer protection, prevent confusion by prohibiting intentionally misleading prices. With me today is Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the California Public Interest Research Group and to testify in support. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator. And you have two minutes.

Great. Checking to see if it's still morning? Yes. Good morning, Chair Berman and Members of the Committee. I'm Rebecca Marcus here on behalf of CALPIRG. We are a statewide consumer advocacy group working to protect Californians and ensure a fair marketplace. We're proud to support SB 683 and thank Senator Glazer for his work on this legislation. Consumers deserve to know what they're paying for and how much upfront. It's that simple. Unfortunately, many companies, including hotels, are blindsided us with hidden fees.

More and more hotels are unbundling the cost of your stay, advertising the room price up front, and then separate often compulsory fees at check in for things like WiFi, parking, use of the pool and health clubs, in-room safe, and the phone in your room. These additional fees, commonly called resort fees, are often not disclosed upfront and rather charged at check-in or when you pay for your stay. In the same FTC report that Senator Glazer just mentioned, they also concluded that separating these resort fees from the room rate without first disclosing the total price is unlikely to result in benefits that offset the likely harm to consumers.

Which include additional time searching for a hotel's mandatory fees or making an uninformed choice resulting in a costly hotel stay. California consumers deserve complete pricing information, and SB 683 and the transparency it will provide consumers is critical to ensuring a fair marketplace. For those reasons, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

Got a motion. Have a second.

Hello Chair and members. Emellia Zamani on behalf of the California Travel Association, I will try to keep it brief, but there's a lot I want to cover so I'll go fast. My membership includes conventions and visitor bureaus, resorts, destinations, hotels, other industry associations, and anyone that's a part of the travel and tourism ecosystem. And we respectfully oppose Senate Bill 683 as it is in print. We are not opposed to transparency in any way.

We're just looking for a balanced approach to consumer protection that doesn't create a competitive disadvantage for our industry that is finally recovering from the economic impacts of COVID. California's tourism promotion on the state through Visit California and local level is funded through tourism assessments. These are usually called TIDs or TBIDs, BIDs, what have you, enabled in California statute and collected from various segments of the industry that pay into these assessments to promote the industry.

According to Visit California in 2022, their industry assessment funded promotions led to $135,000,000,000 of visitor spending. That's about 93% of where we were prior to COVID. This generated $12 billion in state and local tax revenues, which saved Californian households roughly $906 this last year. Local transient occupancy tax, TOT, we don't have one on the state level, but your neighborhoods probably do, paid by hotel and vacation rental guests also power local communities across California.

46 cities rely on TOT revenue to cover at least 30% of their overall general fund expenditures. These taxes and assessments are currently broken out in lodging transactions just at the end of the transaction. We're not unique in using TID and TOT to fund tourism promotion, infrastructure improvements, and essential government services. There are currently over 190 tourism improvement districts nationwide across 19 states, and most states have some sort of lodging tax, whether it's statewide or in their localities as in California.

If SB 683 were to pass, we would be unique in that these government approved taxes, fees, and assessments would be included in the advertised rate of every short term lodging stay. We are opposed to this and believe it will put California at a competitive disadvantage. We have no issue with including resort fees, destination fees, cleaning fees, credit card fees, and the advertised rate.

And some hotel chains are doing this already, leading the way in this practice, as they were told to do by the AG in Pennsylvania. But a lot of others are taking suit. We're simply asking that these government imposed levies be excluded from provisions of this bill. The cost of visiting California is already pretty high. Please don't artificially inflate it by including these approved levies into the term junk fees because we don't believe that they are. They do provide a public benefit.

Thank you.

And have I gone over two minutes? Sorry, Julee.

That's all right. Go ahead. I think just hit the mic.

Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. CHLA represents the big brands down to the little Airbnbs and everything in between. The only thing I want to add here, we have the same position, which is opposed unless amended. Our focus, of course, is government imposed fees. California was the last state in the union to open up after COVID. We have missed out on years of large groups and business conventions coming to California. We think putting a big flashlight on our higher taxes probably isn't the best way to get us moving in the right direction on large groups and businesses. So we echo the concerns shared by Cal Travel and ask for your no vote unless it's amended.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the, no, first in support of the bill? Did I already do that? Sorry, y'all. We're at the end of the hearing. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill?

Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the Expedia Group, in opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to colleagues. Questions or comments? Assemblymember McCarty.

Yes, thank you. I think this is a righteous issue that our president is on, the former president of McClatchy High School is on, our attorney general, that's Mr. Glazer, by the way, our Chair. Many people are talking about this issue. It's a no brainer. I think one of our colleagues is working on this on other aspects as well, rental cars. As consumers, we see this and you get all in and your mind says you're in. It's kind of like you buy tickets for concerts. It's like Ms. Friedman says, you're in and then you say yes and then at the end they add up their stuff and then you're past the point of no return. You're like, oh, screw it. I already said I'm in, but it's not fair. And so I support this. I'm a joint author with Mr. Berman on a similar bill.

Probably will get one bill at the end. But I do think the issue raised by the Convention and Visitors Bureau Association, including our local one, Visit Sacramento, brings up a good issue and I would hope that we could address that piece because these aren't add on fees that the Marriott are putting in for the resort fee. They don't tell you till you get there.

This other ones, these taxes and other pieces I think is a legitimate issue, and it's something that I think you could potentially take out and still keep 90% of what we're trying to address in this legislative package. So hoping that we could address that as we move on. Do you have any thoughts about that, Senator?

Well, first, I think part of the challenge of California being so progressive is that sometimes we're ahead of the country. I mean, this really should be done on the national level, so there's an equal playing field. No one wants to put our companies at a disadvantage here. This is not something I typically legislate in this area, those who know my business friendly approach to things. So it's a little uncomfortable to be in front of the nation on it. But I do think we're trying to send a clear message. I want to support our California lodging establishments, and I'd like to be able to figure out how to do that. But a part of it is to lead.

This will allow California to lead in this space about full disclosure for people, I guess I would add, assemblymember, that the hotel industry, the lodging industry, they're big boys and girls, and they know when they agree to these convention taxes or these transit occupancy taxes, they know that there's a reason for it and there's a disadvantage for it. But they've come to the conclusion that it helps promote the business and that overall it's going to be a gain. So they're making adult decisions about all these different fees that, some of which you're referencing. And I know that they do it thoughtfully and carefully. And I think that will continue to be the rule going forward as they work with communities to advance these types of fees you're referencing.

Thank you. So I'm going to have a little list. We're going to go with a Assemblymember Nguyen, then Dixon, then Lee, and then I'm going to bring it to some other colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I agree with you on the transparency part, and I want to thank my colleague from Sacramento for bringing up some of these also concerns. And you and I had a really great conversation this morning as I was driving in here with some questions on this bill. And when folks come here for conventions or they stay here, we're trying to be a destination state here. And we want to continue to bring people here because we know they have 49 other states that they can choose to go to as well. And cost is an issue for many folks. Taxes is different in every city. Taxes is different in every state.

And you and I talked about this and I want to support this bill, but I also want your commitment, one, to work with the opposition, which I feel like that's what you are saying, is that you want to continue to work with them. But two, the tax part is a big issue for me, and if I can get your commitment to exempt the tax out of this, then I want to be able to support this bill.

Well, let me just say this, that first of all, we've had good conversations. We have another bill on a different issue that I've had the chance to work with these wonderful opponents today at least, and I'm certainly committed to continuing those conversations. And I think the tax issue, I'm open to taking a closer look at the tax issue. This bill, one of the unique things about the work in this area is that Chair Berman and I are both carrying bills and we have tried to collaborate on our work so that I don't get too far ahead of him and he doesn't get too far ahead of me.

He's made a single change to his bill that's different than mine, that I'm open to incorporating into mine, which is to delay the implementation for six months. But these are things that we've been trying to collaborate on between the houses. So I'm committed to taking another look at the tax issue in conjunction with your chair and open minded to how we try to find this balance that we're trying to do with transparency and disclosure, but not putting at a disadvantage, competitive disadvantage. And taxes may be the place where we can find better common ground.

Thank you. And just chairs prerogative just to reiterate what the Senator said in terms of we're having ongoing conversations. Our last one was Friday morning. So we've been having lots of conversations together and then also conversations with industry that has concerns. The tax issue is a little more complicated. There's TOT, which is voted on by the community. I know because I led the effort in Palo Alto to raise it from 12 to 14% to help fund public safety buildings and fire stations and other things.

But there's also these kind of tenant improvement districts which are voted on, my understanding is by the hotels themselves. So there's some real differences that need to be hashed out and we'll keep those conversations going. I know between us some other colleagues that have bills in a similar space and the opposition and the supporters as well. Just for everybody's clarification before they make their comments and ask their questions. So I've got Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate the mutual effort here that we're going through. I totally agree with the tax treatment in terms of visibility, but if this is a consumer protection bill, let's protect the consumers also and let them know, in addition to the fees that are going to be tacked on, let them know that if it's an Airbnb or a hotel and it's $250 a night, can you put a little requirement for an asterisk and say final fees and taxes will be on the final payment page?

Just so, for the benefit of those who are comparing, you go on the website for Airbnb or hotels and you see $250 a night for one hotel that doesn't include fees and then $150 a night that does include fees. Let's be fair to the consumer so they don't have to play a guessing game. Does it include fees and taxes or does it not? And I do agree with the representatives of the tourism industry.

It really will put, because we're first put our business, our state, and our industry at a disadvantage because it will take a while for Congress and the states to catch up. So I don't mind being number one in this area, but I think we have to be clear to the consumer that it's not apples and apples, it's apples and oranges until the rest of the country catches up. So just put an asterisk there and say the base cost is 250 or whatever, obviously.

And then there's an asterisk or a footnote that says see the final page at the time of payment and you will see the total fees. And then they know what they're getting. But to put our state and our industry at a disadvantage, taxes and fees at the front end, I think is a problem. So that's where I am. Move it to the back end and everybody be happy. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lee.

Senator, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I was happy to support our chairs version of the bill as well. And I think it's a very thoughtful pro-consumer bill. And I would love, obviously, to see more pro-consumer bills coming out of your office, too. But if you would have me, I would love to be a co-author on the bill, too. And I hope you continue working on this effort. And I do think in many ways it's very fair to consumers' embassies to know exactly what they're going to buy. And it's a very simple common sense measure. And hopefully when we do it in California, other states will follow suit. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember. Assemblymember Gipson. Got it. Moving on to Assemblymember Patterson.

Thanks. I appreciate the bill, Senator. I enjoy you getting out of your comfort zone a little bit on my first year in this house. So in a prior life, i.e. seven months ago, the last 10 plus years, my job was working on booking conferences. I mean, I've booked thousands of hotels with dozens of properties and all types of different property owners and that includes high end and then the places that I can afford to pay as well, then also rentals, owner rentals, those kinds of things. I have personally never experienced this being an issue. And I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm just saying in all the thousands of hotel rooms I've booked and planning events and working with people individually to book their rooms at individual hotels for one event, it hasn't been an issue for me.

But also on the other hand, in Placer County we have one of these tax assessment groups and it's helped fund our, we have now a major sports center in Placer County that draws in maybe hundreds of thousands of people a year. I don't think I'm totally comfortable with saying, hey, they're taxing themselves, they should be exempt from disclosing that fee. I think that it is a consequence of making the decision to have high taxes in this state.

I think people should know that actually we should advertise that more. But on the other hand, I am concerned, obviously, about my district and the economic opportunities that were created in my district. And it's really kind of been a transformative thing in Placer County to bring all these sports teams in from all over the mean. They've had major national tournaments in Placer County and a lot of that's because of the hotel rates are lower compared to some other places like the Bay Area and LA and so on and so forth. So I am a little concerned about the unintended consequences. Honestly, as I sit up here right now. I did oppose the Chair's measure in full disclosure there.

I am a little bit more open to this idea, but I haven't had the opportunity to talk with my locals about how this would impact with the tens of millions of dollars that they spend on this new center. And I am concerned about that impacting something that they've invested so much money in. And it took a huge hit. I mean, it was finished in like 2019 and then the pandemic hit and they're just now catching up now.

So I do have concerns about how that would help locally, but I just want to emphasize that I do think, generally speaking, when people book a room, they should know the price of that room. And I don't think, hey, look, if we've created high taxes or a local government has created high taxes, that's sort of on them. So I am really torn on this one.

But most importantly, I haven't checked with my local people on what the dynamic would be for them and what the losses would be to finance the facility that they already have. And we're kind of changing the game in the middle of it. So that does concern me a little bit. But if you have any comments to that, obviously, I'd take them. But as you can see, I'm struggling with this one. So thank you.

Thank you. And through the Chair, I appreciate your thoughtfulness as you're applying it to this bill. And you can see both sides of the coin, assemblymember. I would note that the bill has enjoyed bipartisanship and authorship, co authorship and support as it's gone through. I think people share the same dilemma that you're facing, and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Assemblymember McKinnor.

Yes. Good afternoon, Senator. Thank you for bringing this forward. I also had a consumer protection bill earlier this year. What I would say about this is a couple of things. As I spoke with one of my good friends who she does golf tournaments all around the country for City of Hope. She does look at the prices. She does look at how much it costs to give these events. And so to have those fees up front, they're very important.

But I don't want to lose business in California, and I know you don't either, Senator, but something really struck me was the taxes. I don't think those taxes should be a part of that, because even when I look at a sale for anything, a car for anything to purchase or to buy or to rent, the taxes are never included. And so we set the taxes, the local community set the taxes. Taxes can change. I think those fees should be disclosed. But I'm really having a hard time with the taxes being disclosed. So I would really like you to look at maybe taking those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, assemblymember. Yes. Assemblymember Gipson.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the senator for bringing this piece of legislation before us. And I believe certainly that the senator is trying to certainly be thoughtful as it relates to addressing what we know is a national issue as it relates to these fees not being disclosed. And people, at the end of the day, they want to know what it costs up front.

And so from my lens, looking forward to you guys working this thing out, moving this bill forward, but also with the understanding, well, with my suggestion, let me say that my suggestion being that one, showing what it costs and then also the fees that goes along with it. And I believe that it helps people understand what they're getting up front so that they won't be surprised.

I know that our president have made mention of hidden fees and things of that nature, but if the person who's purchasing whatever the services may be, they just need to be aware. And I believe that California, we don't want to run businesses away from California. We want California to attract more businesses here. And I think that we set ourselves apart from a number of different other states around. That's why people want to do business here.

But I think if people know what the cost is up front, they will feel a lot more comfortable and not a gotcha moment at the end when they're getting ready to reveal or pay for a final purchase. So that's my suggestion I will be voting for today. But I would love for you again to get with the opposition to at least consider some of what you've heard today as it relates to closing fees upfront. Thank you.

Assemblymember Alvarez, then Assemblymember Nguyen.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate you bringing forward. Appreciate the discussion. I would just like to note that there's taxes and there's other fees. There's things like bids. In my case, my City of San Diego, we've had something called the tourism marketing district, which is an additional fee that gets charged on top of the tax. And so as you go forward with the discussion, it seems like people are asking that you look into the tax situation. I would just ask that you be mindful of that, that there are some instances where these hotels and resorts proactively create these districts to maybe build a sports facility, or in my case, the attempt was to build an expanded convention center. Those are fees that are being charged in order to have facilities that are going to positively impact the hotels, and tourism in general, but the hotels. And so I think it's important that we distinguish those two. If there are fees that are being assessed by locals for any particular specific piece of infrastructure, I think that should be disclosed. But I'm cognizant of my colleagues concerns about maybe other taxes.

And so that doesn't give you any more clarity on how to move forward on this. I just ask that we identify that there are real fees that sometimes purport to be taxes, and it's not always that clearly delineated. So as you go forward and you determine which ones stay in and which ones to stay out. I guess I would land on the side of, err on the side of more disclosure rather than less. Just like happens with airline tickets, right? Everything gets disclosed when you purchase an airline ticket, including the tax associated. So more disclosure from my opinion, is better than less. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be real quick. I think you've heard from many of us here about the taxes being something that is making us really uncomfortable, the fees we're all for. I'd love to get a hard commitment from you that you would remove the taxes. I think that would make a lot of us feel so much better on voting for this. You heard from my colleague over here all the way down south to up here north. I think it really would make us feel a lot better.

Through the Chair. Look, I want to collaborate with the Chair. We've been working together from the start, and I don't want to necessarily change that here on the fly. As I said earlier, I'm open to the issue of taxes. Again, what type of taxes? There's lots of different types of taxes. So what gets in and what gets out is not so easy and to make a hard delineation on. This member from above here made reference to airlines. Assemblymember Alvarez, when you make an airline reservation, are you able to compare one airline to another on the same segment? And the answer is you are able to do that. Why?

Because the price that they put out there is everything, is everything. That $200 airplane ticket doesn't say, and then we add taxes on. So once again, you have a federal rule that says, no, it's all inclusive, and it's a consumer protection element, too, so that they don't play the games. Your analysis, the committee analysis, is very well done. It talks about drip, the dripping process, and others have testified to that. So to be specific, it's really about how you define the fee or the tax. And we have had a great collegiality here, and it's always nice between two houses to not have this competition, but to actually try to work together thoughtfully to make the right lines, the clear lines for these types of bills. And I want to show respect to your Chair by making sure we're collaborating all the way to the end here on this.

Thank you, Senator. Any additional questions or comments? Vice-Chair Flora.

Thank you, Chair. And I don't want to belabor the point. I feel like we've kind of beat this into the ground. And Senator, Assemblymember Nguyen kind of brought it up. But on the airline thing, I do want to point out that is a federal tax. That's not a state and local tax. So I think there is a very big difference between what we're talking about with those two. And I guess obviously you have committed to continue to work with this. Senator Dodd has a bill that's supported by the attorney general that deals with this, that does not have the taxes that industry is supportive of. I guess, what is the hesitation? I know taxes are, there's a lot going on in that world, but if we're talking like state imposed or local imposed taxes that differ, I mean, from the Central Valley to Huntington Beach, there's going to be a difference between those two taxes.

And I do view it as a competition problem, as something that will hurt certain communities based on that. You're right. When organizations make adult decisions, you pay a premium to go to Miss Dixon's area. Right? Everybody understands that. We get that versus the Holiday Inn in Modesto. Right? It's just different. So I think we need to have this conversation. But I guess when it comes to state and local taxes, what is the hesitation? I mean, it seems like a really easy fix to get everybody supportive of it, including me.

I think there's a good case to be made through the Chair. I think there is a good case to be made that taxes, sales tax in particular, doesn't have to be included in the full upfront disclosure. So I find it to be compelling. Again, I don't want to make a decision here without collaborating properly with those who have been working on this issue.

So I guess just to say to you that I'm not anti industry here and I'm trying to find the right balance with a bill like this. So I'm hopeful that you'll trust me to work with your colleagues to find that balance as the bill moves forward. We have a lot of steps ahead. Everyone will have the opportunity to support it or oppose it if it is able to get to the floor. We have that mysterious block. It's called appropriation. Still ahead, too. So I guess my appeal would be to trust my reputation to try to find that balance as best I can and always give you the opportunity to say no at the end of the process.

Well, I appreciate that, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and certainly our chair in dealing with this. I am going to just lay off of it today. I look forward to supporting it on the floor when we get these issues sorted out. So thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Thanks for your consideration today. I know you've had a full agenda, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the conversation. We're all trying to find that balance, consumer protection, disclosure, transparency, and not put our lodging establishments at an unfair disadvantage. And I appreciate your consideration today. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And I found myself in an awkward position during this conversation as an author of a remarkably similar bill with a lot of opinions, but also trying to be chair of your bill as it comes through. It is a remarkably complicated kind of bill and issue that oftentimes we hear, zero, this is so simple, just do this one thing. But then you don't realize that people have different definitions of what taxes are.

In this instance, there's TOT, there might be sales tax, there's the tenant improvement districts. There's just multiple different pieces that need to be discussed. Those conversations are happening. I know we all heard the legitimate concerns that our colleagues have. It's also difficult. You come to my district and should a consumer know, should a tourist know, if I stay in Palo Alto, I'm paying a 15 and a half percent TOT.

But if I'm staying in Sunnyvale, it's hypothetically speaking, because I don't really know, but let's say it's an 11% TOT. And should the tourists know that up front? They're coming to Silicon Valley, but which city are they going to stay in, and should they, as consumers, have that transparency about what the price of their stay will be up front or at the last minute? So these are the conversations we're having. Totally understand the concerns that colleagues have raised.

I strongly support the bill and strongly support the bill moving forward so that we can continue to have these conversations and appreciate the Senator for all the conversations he's had with me as we work on these issues together. So with that, would support the bill, I fully support the bill. And, Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

SB 683 Glazer. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Berman. Aye. Berman, aye Flora. Flora, not voting. Alanis. Alanis, not voting. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Bains. Bains, not voting. Bonta. Chen. Dixon. Dixon, not voting. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Grayson. Irwin. Irwin, aye. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Lowenthal. Lowenthal, aye. McCarty. McCarty, aye. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Nguyen. Nguyen, not voting. Patterson. Patterson, not voting. Ting. Ting, aye.

That bill is out. Thank you, Senator. And now we're going to run through the bills for folks who have missed. First, yeah, just go ahead.

Go ahead and take it from the top.

On consent. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Ting. Ting, aye. ACR 86 Kalra, the motion is to be adopted and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Alanis.

I'm sorry, I missed the Bill number.

ACR 86. Alanis, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Patterson. Patterson, not voting. SB 285 Allen, the motion was due passed to the Committee on Governmental Organization. Flora. Gipson. Gipson, aye. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Ting. Ting, aye.

On SB 372 Menjivar, the motion was due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Alanis. Alanis, not voting. Dixon. Dixon, not voting. Gipson. Patterson. Patterson, not voting.

On SB 373 Menjivar, the motion was due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Patterson. Patterson, aye. On SB 385 Atkins, the motion was due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Alanis. Alanis, not voting. Dixon. SB 385 Atkins. Dixon, no. Gipson. McCarty. McCarty, aye.

On SB 508 Laird, the motion was due passed to the Committee on Natural Resources. Dixon. Dixon, aye. McCarty. McCarty, aye. Patterson. Patterson, aye. On SB 669 Cortese, the motion was due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Gipson. Ting. Ting, aye.

On SB 683 Glazer, Bonta. Bonta, not voting. Chen. Grayson.

On SB 683 Glazer, the motion was due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Grayson. Grayson, aye.

And with that, the meeting is adjourned.