Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Please note that AB 2187. Bruan, AB 3129 would have been pulled from today's hearing. The rules for witness testimony are there. Each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization of any, and their position only as you proceed with witness and public comment.

I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing. And we will begin as a Subcommitee since we, we do not have quorum at the moment with the Vice Chair here bright and early, and we'll go to file item one, AB 2089. Holden.

Good morning, Mister chair.

Good morning.

I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 2089 today. As some of you may recall, a few years ago, I introduced AB 105, the Upward Mobility act of 2021, which contained a provision that required. Required any state agency, board, or Commission that directly or by contract, collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for specified African American groups, similar to the data collected for Californians of Asian descent.

This data is critical to to accurately reporting who among California's African American African descent is experiencing barriers of upward mobility in our state's civil service system. While AB 105 did not become law, the data collection provision was incorporated into the budget under SB 189 in 2022. AB 2009 continues this data collection trend by requiring a city, county, or city and county, when collecting demographic data as to the ancestry of ethnic origin of its employees, to include additional categories and tabulations for specified African American groups.

This data can be used to target potential employment opportunities as well as services that can be provided with me to testify. And I believe he's making his way here, if he's not already. Is Charles Logston, a lead organizer for the coalition for just Inequitable California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, assemblymember. Maybe your witnesses making. Well, why don't we for now, see if there's anyone else here that would like to at least express support of AB 2089. Okay. Is there. Okay. Yeah. Just state your name, organization, if any, and your position on AB 2089.

Yes, good morning. My name is Darlene Crummity. I am a Member of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California CJEC, as well as the American Redress Coalition of California Bay Area, Arc Bay Area. I'm in strong support of AB 2089. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Raphael Plunkett. I am a board Member with LEAP, the Lineage Equity Advancement Project and I came to visit you from Diamondbar. I wanted to express our full support for AB 2089.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Kim Mims. I'm with the Coalition for Adjusting Equitable California Cjech, American Redress Coalition of California ArC, Sacramento branch and amend the mass media. I am in full support of AB 2089. Please vote aye.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2089? Seeing no one. We don't have a quorum at the moment. Mister Holden, would you like to close?

Well, I respectfully ask for your I vote. I think this is an important topic. It's taken to the local level what we've already incorporated in state law via the budget. And when you do receive your quorum, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Item Five: AB 2223: Aguiar-Curry. And there's two bills. I think you'll be starting with AB 2223.

Mr. Chair, is all right if I provide some props?

Yeah, no problem. Is that for breakfast?

That's for about your 4:00 meeting, since you're still sitting here. Good morning everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I would also like to thank the Committee staff for their work with us on this bill. I started working in this space because of the 2018 Farm Bill unleashed a largely unregulated industry. No products were subject to thorough testing, and intoxicating products were starting to pop up in smoke shops and gas stations with no age limits or protections.

My top priority is always to be protecting the health and safety of California consumers, but I also wanted to allow people to continue using non-intoxicating health and wellness products, and the discussion was focused on CBD. AB 45, which was the strictest hemp law in the country when it was enacted, it closed loopholes from the federal Farm Bill by implementing THC concentration limits, prohibiting intoxicating and synthetic compounds, and setting rigorous testing protocols and labeling standards.

I'm working on AB 2223 to tackle some of the issues that have come up during the implementation of AB 45. As the hemp market grows, we're seeing more intoxicating hemp products that are sold outside of dispensaries without age limits, which should be illegal. This bill is another huge undertaking that takes on three issues: cracking down on illegal hemp products with local enforcement, closing loopholes that allow intoxicating hemp products, and integrating hemp into the cannabis supply chain.

We look forward to working with stakeholders, state agencies, and Committee staff as we address concerns about the best way to implement these changes. With me today are Amy Jenkins, representing the California Cannabis Industry Association, and Kristin Heidelbach of the UFCW Western States Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members, Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association. I want to thank the author for championing this very, very critical issue for California's legal cannabis industry. The cannabis license feels less like a privilege and more like a burden today. In addition to navigating the unrelentless sale of cannabis products in illegal channels, the proliferation of unchecked and duty-free hemp products available online, in gas stations, and smoke shops has reached a fever pitch.

Three weeks ago, Total Wine & More made a widely available to consumers hemp beverage product--that's ten milligrams or more--as well as five-milligram edible products. You can buy these in Total Wine & More. There's seven pages of SKUs that provide these products and allow them to be sold. As detailed in CCI's letter, every sale of THC beverages and edible products outside dispensaries robs the California Cannabis Tax Fund of roughly six dollars and eight cents.

Worse still, that revenue loss puts the industry at risk of a dramatic tax increase. The Prop 64 framework is broken, and that is why so many continue to seek opportunities outside the regulated channel. Until policymakers tackle the systemic problems baked into the state's cannabis law, we will forever be addressing threat after existential threat. AB 2223 lays the important groundwork needed to reimagine how we regulate cannabinoids for intoxication, regardless of where they come from.

Following the lead of more than 15 other states, this bill expressly authorizes the use of hemp into the cannabis supply chain and permits dual use in cannabis facilities. It also includes very, very important enforcement provisions that authorize certain state employees and peace officers to seize or embargo hemp products, eliminate the safe harbor provision for hemp manufacturers to register, and mandates in and out-of-state hemp manufacturers to register with the California Department of Health, Public Health.

Cannabis products are excessively regulated and overtaxed. In contrast, intoxicating hemp products are unregulated. I appreciate the work of the Assemblywoman, and urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach, here on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, here in proud support of AB 2223. First of all, I want to thank Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry for authoring this important legislation that, if passed, will protect not only California consumers, but the workers and employers that UFCW represents in the cannabis industry. High taxes in a booming illicit market create almost untenable challenges for a highly regulated cannabis industry.

Add to that an unchecked hemp-derived THC alternative that is virtually unregulated, and you have an industry that is on the brink of collapse. The cannabis industry has such high guardrails in place that manage how they conduct their businesses, who they can sell their products to, how product is moved, and how they can advertise.

I don't need to tell anyone in this room that the proliferation of hemp-based intoxicating product solicitations that flood our inboxes or are sold easily online or offered to unknown audiences on social media platforms is a threat to consumer safety. Neither the voters nor the State Legislature intended for the hemp market to evolve into a shadow market where intoxicating cannabinoids are cheap, potent, untested, and untaxed.

Rather, the hemp market was intended to be a wellness market based on non-intoxicating therapeutic cannabinoids derived naturally for low THC plants. From UFCW's perspective, the most important aspect of this bill is enforcement. This bill will give local public health officials a better chance at fighting bad actors that flood our streets with high THC products, threaten consumer safety, and aid in lowering the taxes that California collects. And with this, we urge your aye vote. If I can just add one more item?

Yeah.

I hate to admit this in Committee, but my 14-year-old daughter brought this into--our kids, right, when we work from home listen to what we do on a day-to-day basis, and she purchased these as a healthy smoking alternative. It says on the package, 'zero nicotine and zero tobacco,' and she brought it in to me and she said, 'I want you to know I bought this on Amazon.'

She's 14, and on the side, it says that it has contains approximately 50 milligrams of CBD and less than 0.3 percent of THC. So the problem is, is that our children are getting their hands on this product. It's not the regulated cannabis industry that's the problem, it's these hemp products. This is from Las Vegas. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2223?

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

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of Good Farmers Great Neighbors based in Santa Barbara County, in strong support, and we applaud the efforts of the Majority Leader.

Good morning. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the Cannabis Distribution Association. We're in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the Joint Labor Management Cannabis Committee for San Diego and Imperial Counties, made up of March and Ash and UFCW Local 135. Thank you.

Good morning, Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Joe Devine, on behalf of the One Hemp Coalition and Charlotte's Web, in support. We do have one tweak that we'd like to work with the author on, but wholeheartedly support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2223?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Mark Smith. I'm here today on behalf of Origins Council to oppose AB 2223 unless amended. Origins Council is a statewide advocacy organization representing 800 members across the full cannabis supply chain, most of whom are small, independent, licensed cannabis cultivators. Part of this bill is trying to stop intoxicating synthetic cannabinoids within the hemp market, as demonstrated by these products and the previous discussion. We support this.

However, the integration language in the bill as currently written is opening the door wide open for those same intoxicating, synthetic cannabinoids to take over the regulated cannabis market. I think it's important for you to understand that hemp in the marketplace is awash in chemically synthesized THC-like compounds, including things that you've heard about: Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, 11-hydroxy-THC. That last one is ten times stronger than the THC that is derived from a cannabis plant.

As written, 2223 proposes a prohibition on synthetic conversions that would apply only to Delta-9-THC, not to these dozens of other intoxicating synthetic compounds. The bill should be amended to prohibit THC or a comparable cannabinoid that has been synthetically converted from a hemp-derived cannabinoid. This is our top priority. However, there are other significant issues regarding integration that must be addressed.

These include assuring quality control on integrated hemp products by requiring that integration take place through licensed cannabis distribution, capping THC well below one milligram for hemp products sold in either the hemp or cannabis market, and implementing integration regulations through a normal rather than an emergency rulemaking process. Thank you.

Thank you. So, anyone else here in opposition to AB 2223?

Mr. Chair and Members, Rand Martin, here on behalf of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable. We do not have a position on the bill. We do have concerns at this point about the low level of milligrams in the bill and look forward to working with the author and the sponsors and see if we can find a resolution. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, and thank you, Assemblywoman. I need some education. Okay.

I've got the extra.

Okay. All right. So if I understood from your presentation and all of you that the market for cannabis is regulated, and then when that law was established a few years ago, hemp was not included? So hemp is not regulated, is that correct?

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized industrial hemp, but it opened up a loophole where folks are now taking that product and converting it into Delta-8 and Delta-9. Amy, do you want to add?

Is hemp a part in the conversion--is it included in cannabis? Is it a part of a cannabis product?

So if I may, if you want to grow hemp in the State of California, you need to pay a 900 dollar fee to CDFA, and you can grow hemp like any other agricultural product. Cannabis is completely different, and it's treated differently because of its intoxicating effects, right? Hemp has low levels of THC, but at the level grown naturally in the plant, it's not intoxicating. So we treat them differently.

Right now, those products, THC derived from hemp, are infiltrating the marketplace and being sold outside of the cannabis distribution system, but it's a similar compound and has the same effect on the body. It has an intoxicating effect. This bill proposes integration that allows hemp to be brought into the cannabis supply chain. We, as cannabis farmers don't oppose all of that. We are open to CBD, CBN, other types of compounds. We just don't want the intoxicating compounds from hemp to be concentrated or synthetically converted and brought into the cannabis supply chain.

I see. So do you agree with that or what is your--

So I'd like Amy to comment to it.

Sure. Thank you, Assemblywoman, for the question. Let me try to clarify it this way. So right now, cannabis and hemp is the same plant. Cannabis has a higher naturally occurring production of THC. However, there is THC that is contained in hemp plants. The way I try to simplify this is kind of three buckets, and I want to respond to the opposition's comments. First bucket is naturally occurring that manifests high, high quantities, and that's THC and CBD.

And that is the cannabis plant as well as, in some cases, the hemp plant, although it's much higher in CBD. Then there are also naturally occurring cannabinoids that don't manifest in meaningful quantities, and we call those minor cannabinoids, so CBN, other minor cannabinoids. Then there are these Frankenstein synthetics that are manufactured that are not naturally occurring in the plant. They're manufactured through a chemical process, so they are not naturally occurring.

So what's happening is you are seeing these non-naturally occurring synthetic THC compounds incorporated into hemp products and in some cases, cannabis products. And I want to clarify, our bill does not allow for any integration of synthetic cannabinoids, and I have committed that if there is any ambiguity in the language, that we will address that.

Our bill does allow for the ability to incorporate, through integration, the naturally occurring cannabinoids, like CBD, like CBN, that are non-intoxicating, and it does allow some intoxicants. We are also working to address that concern, but those are essentially the three buckets that we're seeing.

Thank you for explaining. No further questions, but thank you. It's complicated.

Thank you.

Trust me.

All right, Madam Majority Leader. Would you like to close?

I sure would. You know, Members, I've been working on this issue for six years, and it's constantly evolving marketplace. As I present this bill today, it will make products and practices safer and make it harder for criminals to sell illegal products. But that doesn't mean this work is done.

I assure you that I will continue to work with all stakeholders and to implement integration in a way that supports our legal hemp and cannabis industries, further empowers our regulators to attack illegal products, and protects public health, and I will commit to all of you that I will update the Committee as those conversations progress. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we get a quorum established, we can take up your matter formally. Thank you. And you have one other item, one plant to another. AB 2606.

Thank you for allowing me to take this up right away. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mister chair Members. Today, California's agricultural industry is experiencing market instability. The increasing impacts of climate change and persistent droughts have reduced water availability throughout California, placing significantly more pressure on the state's agricultural sector and agricultural dependent regions. Agave is a promising alternative to traditional crops because it requires 10% or less of the water needed by many crops while producing new, high value products like California grown agave spirits.

This Bill will help our farmers to be more competitive in domestic and international markets by creating the first agave Commission in the State of California. This Commission will be made up of growers, producers, Members of the public, and will be responsible for the supporting of sustainable production, processing, marketing of California agave spirits. With me today I have Craig Reynolds. He didn't bring any agave. I apologize for that. But he let me go. Put this away. Members, please join me in supporting our Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And Mister chair grateful to your Committee staff for a thorough analysis and to our majority leader for carrying our Bill. I'm the President of the California Agave Council, sponsors of the legislation, and we're a Coalition of California Agave growers, distillers, retailers and others who've come together to support this emerging crop in California. Establishing the Commission is a critical step for our new industry that's rapidly growing. And as the majority leader said, the water limitations confronting agriculture today are severe.

And this is a real promising crop, and we're growing rapidly. I'll just end with a few quick numbers. Fun facts. Two years ago, we started our council with just 15 Members. Today we have over 80. We're in 32 counties throughout the state, from San Diego, Imperial, all the way up to Tehama and Lake 875. That's how many attendees came to our recent agave symposium sponsored by UC Davis and their agave research center. Three inches per acre.

That's the typical annual requirement to grow agave in California, compared to 48 inches for almonds, pistachios and other major crops. And that's why many of our growers in the San Joaquin and impacted water districts are moving into agave in significant ways. And finally, zero. That's the amount of water required to keep agave alive during a severe drought. So thanks again to our majority leader and to you for your support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support of AB 2606? Anyone here in opposition to AB 2606? All right, any questions or comments? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll take that up when we get an opportunity.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Committee.

And assemblymember Nguyen has been very kind to allow Assemblymember Wood to go next.

I think they're horse trading back here.

I appreciate. I know someone was here bright and early, so I appreciate your patience.

Thank you very much.

Item 21, AB 3218.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. I would first like to thank the Committee and staff for their efforts on this measure. State law prohibits tobacco products in California. Flavored tobacco products in California, but unfortunately, they remain readily available throughout the state. The high rate of flavored tobacco use among youth is especially concerning. A 2023 study by the CDC indicates that among middle and high school students who use tobacco, nearly 90% use flavored products.

AB 3218 creates a pathway to ensure flavored tobacco products are no longer available on the shelves of retailers and in our community. By creating an affirmative listing of unflavored tobacco products legal in California, this approach will help retailers determine at a glance whether a product delivered to their stores is legal or not. Additionally, the Bill authorizes the Attorney General to penalize distributors that sell illegal tobacco products and manufacturers that falsely certify that their products are unflavored.

And finally, the Bill authorizes law enforcement to seize illegal tobacco products from distributors. These comprehensive enforcement steps will help implement the flavored tobacco ban that way it was intended. Here to testify in support is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Matthews. Deputy Attorney General Byron Miller is available to answer any technical questions. Thank you, Chairman.

Hi, good morning. Chair and Members Tiffany Matthews, deputy Attorney General and legislative advocate of the California Department of Justice. I'm here today on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud sponsor of AB 3218, along with co sponsors campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association.

Attorney General Bonta would like to thank the author, Assemblymember Jim Wood, and the principal co author, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, for carrying this important piece of legislation that will ensure the successful implementation of the flavored tobacco ban. When the ban went into effect, our office received a number of inquiries asking for guidance and assistance with the rollout of the law.

Our office drafted AB 3218 in response to these inquiries and as a next step in accomplishing the band's policy goals of getting these flavored tobacco products out of the hands of our youth. AB 3218 will do five main things. It'll establish a publicly available list of all tobacco products that are permissibly unflavored and allowed to be sold in California. It will render illegal flavored tobacco products ineligible for Tax Stamps so that such products can be quickly removed from commerce and never reach our kids.

It will hold the distribution chain accountable at a higher level. It will clarify the definition of characterizing flavor to specifically prohibit products that impart menthol like cooling sensations. And the last main component is that we would authorize the Attorney General to omit from the list unflavored to tobacco products that lack the requiring FDA authorization.

AB 3218 will hold sellers of legal products accountable, and it will reduce access to flavored tobacco products, particularly among youth who tend to gravitate towards these products and help prevent them from entering a lifetime of addiction. Thank you for your time today, and we respectfully ask and I vote thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here in support of AB 3218?

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the American Heart Association, in support.

Kesa Bruce, on behalf of the American Lung Association, in support.

Tim Gibbs, campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, in support.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, here in support.

Thank you. So in here in opposition to AB 3218.

Mister chair Members, John Winger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, we represent the majority of gas stations and convenience stores in the state currently have an opposed, unless amended, position, but want to thank the author and the sponsors for the continued dialogue. Appreciate the analysis on the Bill pointing out the penalty of perjury. Concern that we have. We also have concerns with broadening the definition of characterizing flavors.

We just want to make sure that it doesn't bolster the illicit market, which is continuing to be a problem for us. We do support the directory and concept. Some statewide guidance would be very helpful for us. We've seen a patchwork of enforcement at the local level, and so we'd love to see that get cleaned up and so look forward to additional conversations on that. But right now, we do have an opposing submitted. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 3218?

All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Chair. Quick question. So does this come down to an enforcement issue? It seems to me, as a layperson, that may be very complicated out there in the marketplace between flavored tobacco and unflavored tobacco. So the objective is to make sure we protect the unflavored tobacco and, and provide the information so it's known to the marketplace what is legal and not legal. Am I understanding that correctly?

This is about clarification. It's, you know, unfortunately, and I agree, I think retailers have a hard time knowing what's legal, what's not legal. So this is probably creating a definitive list of what is a legal, unflavored product you can sell in your store. We hope that, that we know that that will provide some clarification.

The challenge we're facing now is that, and with all due respect to the opposition, a lot of the enforcement is directed at distributors, not the local retailers, because challenges sometimes for retailers, they go on the basis their distributor says, well, this is a fine product. You can go ahead and sell that. They've got a million other things going on. They do that, and then they find themselves out of compliance.

And so this is about clarification and making sure that we are actually having a law that actually reflects what was intended here back when SB 793 passed.

Well, I commend you for this. So it really goes to the distribution part of the market. And so they can access this list from the FDA?

Actually, no. It will be a list here generated in California.

oh, just California? By which agency?

By the Attorney General's Office.

Okay. All right. And that way it will stop all the illegal flavored tobacco.

That's our hope to protect kids.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

I also want to express my gratitude to the author and to the Attorney General. And I think even as we heard from opposition, the clarity is really important. I think a lot of the, I have family that owns a convenience store and there's a lot of different rules, and distributors are just trying to get their products on the shelves. And sometimes, unbeknownst to them, unbeknownst to themselves and their knowledge, they get in trouble and they want to follow the rules.

Obviously, there's going to be some bad actors, but at the end of the day, most of these business owners are going to try to follow the rules if they know what they are. And so I appreciate this Bill coming forward to help create that clarity and go after some of the bad actors that are taking advantage of these store owners just to get their products on their shelves.

So I appreciate this effort and I'm confident and know that you'll continue to work with opposition on some of those details as well. Would you like to close? Thank you, Mister chair. I'll take that as my close. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote when you have a quorum. Great. Thank you so much. Up next, item two, AB 2148 Low Assemblymember Nguyen will be presenting. And thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen, for Assemblymember Wood, jump ahead there.

Absolutely. Good morning, Mister chair and Members. I'm here today to present AB 2148 on behalf of Assembly Member Evan Low. AB 2148 protects California consumers by requiring entities formed by licensed professional fiduciaries acting in a fiduciary capacity to register with and be subject to regulation and enforcement by the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau. Here with me today is Jerry Desmond, representing Professional Fiduciaries Association.

Thank you, chair of Members Jerry Desmond, Professional Fiduciary Association of California, in support of the Bill. We believe it really will protect consumers in those situations where they engage an entity to provide fiduciary services and act in that capacity. And that happens in trust documents. That happens at court appointments. And we think this closes a loophole and we support the measure and appreciate the measure being introduced.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2148? Anyone here in opposition to AB 2148? Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Nguyen, thank you for stepping in for Assemblymember Low. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote when there's a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Item 19, AB 3155, Assembly Member Friedman.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for the excellent and thorough analysis. AB 3155 protects vulnerable communities located near oil and gas wells by holding oil companies accountable for the health ramifications of neighborhood drilling while incentivizing oil companies to use the best available technology to reduce pollution and protect their neighboring communities.

Of the approximately 5.5 million Californians who live within a mile or of one or more oil and gas wells, one third live in areas that are the most burdened by environmental pollution. This proximity brings disastrous health implications, including increased risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, preterm births and high risk pregnancies, and cancer.

In 2015, the California Council on Science and Technology reviewed existing scientific studies and determined that, from a public health perspective, the most significant exposure to toxic air contaminants occur within one half mile of a well. They recommended that the State of California develop science-backed setback requirements for wells to limit these exposures. The Legislature followed that guidance with the passage of SB 1137 in 2022.

In California, more than 28,367 operational oil and gas wells are located within 3200ft of a home, hospital, school, or other sensitive receptors. The number of existing wells and of potentially new wells near these sensitive receptors is a serious public health concern. For this reason, it is imperative that the oil and gas industry implement the best available technology to prevent future harm to California's vulnerable populations. And to be clear, this bill does not get these wells to shut down. It doesn't compel them to stop being operational.

It just tries to encourage them to use the best pollution reducing technology to protect those sensitive receptors. The oil and gas industry should be held accountable for the negative health outcomes caused due to their oil and gas production in health protective zones. AB 3155 creates a liability presumption to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for the harm they've caused to Californians that reside within 3200ft of their wellheads and production facilities.

Specifically, AB 3155 provides that, after January 1, 2025, an owner, operator, or board member of these wells and facilities be jointly and severally liable for a respiratory ailment diagnosed after January 1, 2025 - so not going back, but going forward - in a senior or child, a preterm birth or high risk pregnancy suffered by a pregnant person, and a child's and a person's cancer diagnosis.

Now, the important thing is that this presumption applies jointly and severally to an operator, owner, or board member, but only applies, and this is the important part, it only applies, first, if the facility or well is located in the same health protection zone where these vulnerable populations reside for more than 24 cumulative months. Two, the respiratory ailments in seniors and children, preterm or high risk pregnancies, and cancers.

And three, and this, I think, is the most important one, only if the oil and gas facility located in such a zone has failed to operationalize the best available control and remediation technology to protect its vulnerable neighbors. Now, some Members of the Committee who aren't here have expressed a concern about the inclusion of preterm births and high risk pregnancies. They asked that we show evidence that they're particularly vulnerable or to remove the language.

And we're happy to do that to the Committee's satisfaction, that if there's data to prove this, they were fine. If we're just throwing that in, we're fine to remove that. And we'll work with the Committee should we leave the Committee. Testifying on behalf of our sponsor, Consumer Watchdog, is Jamie Court and Nalleli Cobo, founder of People Not Pozos. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. My name is Nalleli Cobo. I'm an environmental activist and storyteller. I grew up 30ft across the street from an active oil and gas well. We couldn't open the windows in our home, of our South LA home, because of what was in the air. I couldn't play outside for more than a few minutes without feeling sick, and I began organizing to shut down this oil well at the age of nine.

By the time I was 11, I was diagnosed with asthma, something I'm always going to have to live with now. Sorry. And by the time I turned 19, I was diagnosed with stage two reproductive cancer. And I lost... Sorry. And I lost my ability to bear children as a result. My experience, like that of others who live in neighborhoods polluted by oil drilling, is a constant reminder that those in power do not value our health and our well being.

It's a signal that some communities are expendable, that our lives don't matter as much as the fossil industry's profits. It's time for this Legislature to go further. A bill that would help hold oil drillers legally responsible for the harms they have caused by drilling so close to where people live. AB 3155 would make oil drillers presumptively liable for the illnesses linked to the operations within the setback zone.

Scientific evidence supporting the setback legislation shows that living near oil and gas well has increased risks of asthma, preterm births, and cancer, just like I had. This legislation would essentially shift the burden of proof from communities to polluters. If the oil drillers choose to continue to ignore the scientific evidence that they're sickening surrounding communities, they would assume the risk of significant legal and financial penalties. Protecting us, the community, with laws like AB 3155 is the job we elected lawmakers to do.

All Californians have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy environment. But those with the least resources and political power are likely to bear the brunt of pollution and climate change. We can't continue to prioritize corporate profits over the health and well being of Californians. The fight to put people over pozos persists. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Jamie Court. I'm President of Consumer Watchdog. Nalleli Cobo is not the only one. There are 2.7 million people who live within a half mile of a well. And in 2021, in a letter to Governor Newsom, the California Geologic Energy Management Division Scientific Advisory Panel who studied the public health consequences of living in oil facilities said very clearly, quote, our panel concludes with a high level of certainty that the epidemiological evidence indicates that close regional proximity to oil and gas development is associated with adverse perinatal and respiratory outcomes. Very clear. Five of the top 12 toxics commonly used in LA oil fields are carcinogens, meaning they cause cancer.

And we have scientific evidence showing that proximity to oil production facilities is linked to cancer. And one study found, quote, the proximity to an oil production facility was associated with statistically significant increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types. So all companies have to do to avoid this liability is use the best pollution control technology that is commercially available. That is commercially available. It's a simple thing to do. It's something we ask the firearms industry to do.

Gunmakers, gunmakers have to follow the code of conduct or they are presumptively liable when people die or killed. And this is no different. Drilling in oil fields is no safer. I think it's more dangerous than making guns. So SB 1137 was a law that this Legislature passed in order to seize on this evidence we have about the dangers of living in the zones. And it told drillers not to drill. They said, no, we're going to referendum that, and we're going to drill.

So if they're going to drill, the very least they can do is make sure they use the best available technology to not hurt or kill people. I want to say one last thing. I saw some posters out in support of SB 1137 saying "energy proud." Energy proud. And, excuse me, against AB 3155, posters against AB 3155 saying, "energy proud." I saw them in the hallway. Is the energy industry proud of what's happened to Nalleli Cobo?

Is the energy industry proud that they have wells that have leaks, and they're causing harm in the community? The energy industry can be proud once they start taking responsibility for their wells, and this bill makes them take responsibility for their wells. Thank you.

Thank you. We're gonna take a pause for a moment to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum established. If anyone here in support of AB 3155...

Good morning...

Hello. Kayla Karimi, Staff Attorney for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, co-sponsor of the bill in enthusiastic support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy for Consumer Watchdog. And I have a large list of supporters that I'll read as fast as I can. 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, 350 Bay Area Action, 350 Conejo/San Fernando Valley, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, 350 Ventura County Climate Hub, Azul, Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, California Environmental Voters, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Nursing, CALPIRG, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Citizens Climate Lobby Santa Cruz.

Climate Action California, Climate First, Climate Hawks Vote, Communities for a Better Environment, Consumer Attorneys of California, Elders Climate Action Northern and Southern California, Elected Officials to Protect America, Code Blue, Environment California, Environmental Defense Center, Environmental Working Group, Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area, Food and Water Watch.

Fossil Free California, FracTracker Alliance, Friends of the Earth, Glendale Environmental Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Indivisible Marin, Labor Rise Climate Jobs Action Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil and Gas Action Network, Parents Against SSFL, Patagonia, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Physicians for Social Responsibility Sacramento.

Presente.org, Protect Playa Now, Redeemer Community Partnership, Resource Renewal Institute, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco NAHN, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Save EPA, SoCal 350 Climate Action, SolidarityINFOService, Stand.Earth, Sunflower Alliance, Sustainable Mill Valley, The Climate Center, Transformative Wealth Management, Vote Solar, and West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs.

Very, very impressive. All right, we have anyone here in opposition to AB 3155?

Good morning, Members of the Committee. Mr. Chair, my name is Michael McDonough. I'm a partner with Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, and I'm here for the Western States Petroleum Association. Respectfully, Members, we stand opposed to AB 3155. We believe it sets a dangerous legal precedent. Because of difficulty in proving causation and complex multifactorial health conditions, like cancer and high risk pregnancies, this bill's presumption of liability for oil and gas operations would function as a de facto strict liability or a form of guilty until proven innocent.

Now, the proponents argue that facilities can try to defend themselves against a presumption of 100% liability, but the facts are this. Even expert epidemiologists agree that cancer and high risk pregnancies can be influenced and are influenced by numerous genetic, dietary, behavioral, physiological, and other situational factors. Even the reports the bill cites only correlate environmental influences with health conditions. They don't prove causation. Now, when it comes to correlation, proximity to high vehicle traffic areas is another factor correlated with cancer.

So is a family history of certain types of cancers or genetic anomalies, both of which can also be a leading cause of high risk pregnancies. Obesity and excessive alcohol drinking are correlated with liver cancer. Hormone replacement therapy is correlated with breast and ovarian cancer. But none of those correlations tell us anything about what factors caused any individual's cancer. How much harder then will it be for a defendant to disprove that a single factor had any contribution whatsoever? Perhaps it would be impossible.

And that seems to be, unfortunately, the purpose of the bill, to designate a single deep pocket industry that the bill's author, herself, has decided is responsible for 100% of the cases of cancer and 100% of the high risk pregnancies within a certain radius of a production facility, even though those two conclusions are not ones shared by any reputable epidemiologist. Now, that's not the way California's justice system should work. And we submit it that it sets a dangerous precedent for the Assembly.

So when will you hold alcohol makers responsible for 100% of the medical costs associated with cirrhosis and liver cancer? When will you gonna hold food manufacturers 100% liable for high risk pregnancies caused by diabetes? And when is the Assembly going to pass a bill that holds state and local governments 100% responsible for all cancers occurring within 3200ft of a major highway or street? So you can see this is a treacherous road for the state to go down.

It sets the state for any Legislature to target their disfavored industry of choice for the next presumption in paying for the next multi-factor disease. We urge you not to go down that road and allow facts and evidence to continue to govern who's going to be legally responsible.

Thank you, appreciate it.

My name is Charles Henderson. It's an honor to be sitting here. Thank you Mr. Chairman and the Committee. At early age, I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. At 16 I was convicted for first degree murder. I spent 28 years of my life incarcerated in prison, which I reformed myself. I came home. The oil industry was the only industry that allowed me to become a person to be able to provide for my family.

I looked for jobs, I couldn't find none because I didn't have no work history, I didn't have no type of skills, anything. But the oil industry took me in. They gave me what they call like OJT, which is on the job training. I was able to start off as a roustabout, move my way up into operator to where I make it now a substantial living to where now I own my house, I have a wife, I have kids.

We, in this field, do everything we can to make sure that it is a safe environment. I take my kids to work with me. I have that much confidence in what we do at these places to make sure that we do everything we can. I sit here not only representing myself but 50,000 coworkers in my industry that also have kids that also have been given what we believe as a second chance to become tax paying citizens.

I urge this Committee to please vote no on this bill because it will destroy our industry. And not only it will destroy our industry, it would destroy everything that I come out and I built and I have established for myself and my kids. I mean, if we are not doing what we're not supposed to be doing then I understand that.

But we are so strictly regulated where we at that we are allowed to work around gas oil wells without having to wear respirators, without having to wear our Tyveks and PPE and all the rest of that because there's no danger there. I've been in the field for 14 years now.

I appreciate you sir, and I commend you for turning your life on in such a productive manner. And thank you for being here. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 3155?

Sean Wallentine from the California Independent Petroleum Association, representing 350 oil and gas producers, service and supply companies, and royalty owners and 50,000 oil workers just like Charles, in strong opposition to the bill.

Thank you.

Mallory Lumsden, Bakersfield, California, and I strongly oppose 3155.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Robert Sausedo. I'm President and CEO of Community Build. I'm in opposition to this bill because I think shifting the burden of proof to a defendant is wrong. It's against our constitution.

Thank you.

And every measure we could consider. Thank you.

Mel Assagai for the California African American Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Stevevonna Evans in opposition of the bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Ted Cordova representing E&B Natural Resources, over 250 oilfield workers and thousands and thousands of royalty owners, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rich Bueler, engineer from Bakersfield in opposition of the bill.

Thank you.

Matthew Pills, engineer from Bakersfield, and I oppose AB 3155.

Thank you.

Robin Woodward. I am energy proud, and I can say that because what I get to do is help manage a portfolio of $4 million to get communities in Monterey, Kern, and Fresno County. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Council. Keri Cimarolli, mother, resident of the Valley, live in Bakersfield, a Manager of Environmental for Aera Energy, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Shalanda Davis-Layton. I was born and raised in Bakersfield. I have worked in this industry for over 17 years as a rotating equipment engineer, and I'm proud to work for the energy, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tomai Mozai, engineer from Bakersfield, and I oppose.

Thank you.

Bernardo Barrientos, reservoir engineer from Bakersfield, Kern County. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Danielle Ochoa, engineer from Bakersfield. I am in opposition of AB 3155.

Thank you.

Good morning. Leah Adkins from Bakersfield, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jose Rocha, construction manager in Bakersfield, California, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Parham, father of four, master of none, 10 years in the industry in Bakersfield, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alejandra Ruiz, and I work for Chevron, and I work with the communities in Kern, Monterey, and Fresno County. And I know they're very appreciative. And I think if you will see the people that actually live in these counties...

For everyone that's in line, just your position on the bill. Thank you. We've already heard testimony.

Brittany Blankenship, Kern County. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rad Sobczyk. I'm petrophysicist with California Resources Corporation, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Miguel Cruz. I work in the suburban area, LA, and I oppose this bill. I work for E&B Natural Resources.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alexander Kim, representing the Asian Food Trade Association and the Afghan American Business Alliance, and we represent LA County, Orange County, San Diego, and Inland Empire. We oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Gerry Palon. I'm the President of the Coalition of Filipino American Chambers of Commerce. It's a national organization of 42 chambers all over the country, and we oppose the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Noe Flores. I'm representing the Central Valley Yemeni Association, and we are opposed to this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dr. Ruben Guerra, Chairman of the Latin Business Association, representing over 700,000 Latino-owned businesses for the last 49 years in California. Thank you. And we oppose the bill.

My name is Chez Gonzalez, and I'm with the Si Se Puede organization out of Fresno, the Central Valley, and we oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Mike Monagan from State Building Trades, opposition.

Thank you.

Dennis Albiani with Plains All American Pipeline Company in opposition.

Thank you.

Matthew Capozzoli from Bakersfield in opposition.

Thank you.

Kacy Twist, biologist from Bakersfield. I oppose it.

Thank you.

Kelly Harrington from Bakersfield. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the County of Kern in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jaime Huff, Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Sanders, Groundswell for Water and Housing Justice, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Cedric Farmer, Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches, opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Clint Olivier from the Central Valley Business Federation in opposition.

Thank you.

Seth Olson, cogeneration engineer from Bakersfield, in opposition.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for being here. I want to start by saying how sorry I am for your experience and your health issues. I have a daughter, and you deserve so much more than what you've gotten. And I just want to say that. And Charles, I think it is, I want to commend you for both everything you've done, and I'm sure your kids are incredibly proud of you and for being up here to participate in this process.

It's really important to hear from people who are directly impacted. You know, I have been... I'm a hardcore environmentalist, and yet I have actually been critical of policies in the Legislature that focus on supply side because I think of climate change as a global issue, and I think shipping oil in from foreign countries that have dirtier standards than we do here in the United States isn't necessarily beneficial to the globe and to the future.

And I know that that was how this was framed by the opposition, but that's not how I see this bill. You know, you laid out, like a brilliant defense attorney the case that defendants lay out every time someone like this comes into a courtroom. It could be something else. And just like you said, it is incredibly hard to prove the causation of these illnesses. And so right now, that's on the plaintiff. And you're right, it's hard.

And so you just laid out why it would be hard for the oil companies to prove causation. But right now, we're expecting the plaintiffs to do it. And so I have had conversations with the author, and I know she's committed to working on some things in the bill. I had concerns with some of the breadth of the illnesses listed here. I confess I had one of my children over 35, which considered high risk pregnancy. Obviously, not every high risk pregnancy is related to the oil wells.

So I do think the bill needs to be narrowed to the illnesses that we know are correlated with living close to these facilities. Asthma, I think, is a pretty clear one, and I'm sure there are others. And I know that the author is committed to narrowing the bill, to working on making sure that the shift in the burden is where we know there is epidemiological evidence that we have clusters and things caused by these oil wells.

And with that, I'm comfortable with the bill. Because I think the question that we get to decide here today is who bears that burden? Is it the plaintiff or is it the defendant? And I don't think that shuts down oil wells because I think it just decides who has to walk into court and prove that it wasn't the oil wells. Right.

And where we know the oil wells could be causing these diseases, I think it's fair to say that it is on these companies to prove that it wasn't. And if you can, it isn't strict liability. There's nothing that puts a strict liability in here. It just talks about who bears that burden. And to be honest, as a former defense attorney myself, I know that if it's possible, you will do it.

And so I think that we are shifting the burden in a way that makes sense for justice and for these communities who have borne too much to date. I think it should be done in a way that connects to the science, and I trust the author will continue to work to refine the bill to do just that. But I just think this is not a bill that will shut down oil companies or oil production in California.

I think it will bring relief to people who are bearing, one thing we didn't talk much about here today is the cost, the cost on these families of the healthcare bills that come along with living in these communities of having higher rates of asthma. And I actually think that that should not be solely borne by these communities. And if it means cleaner practices because you want to avoid that liability, that's a win for these communities.

Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Is there a second? And we have a second. I appreciate the comments from our colleague. You know, this is... I think one of the main components that also makes me comfortable is using the best available technology to protect its most vulnerable neighbors. That's not only good for the neighbors, it's good for the workers too. And frankly, if you're operating an oil well that's in neighborhoods, you should be doing that anyway.

And so that's one easy way to remove the liability shifting is just use the best technology that's commercially available to run the cleanest operation you can. And so that's, I would say, an easy out because, again, you know, the societal cost, not just to the families, but the overall societal cost, health care costs, the obvious personal cost is enormous. And if we can avoid that and avoid shifting that liability, that's a win win. And so I think that provides an opportunity.

And even with... It's not, I understand the argument from opposition. It is not strict liability. It still allows you to offer up evidence, but to rebut the presumption, and there's still comparative negligence. There's still a lot of other factors that can be taken into account through the litigation process. But I do appreciate the robust debate. I appreciate everyone being here, both in support and opposition.

The long list of support that we heard from Stone and then all, everyone that took the time to be here. Just know that we do appreciate the industry. We just want to make sure it's as safe as possible for those that actually live 24/7 next to some of these facilities. And I think we can do that. And so, with that, would you like to close, Assembly Member Friedman?

Just, I also want to thank everybody who came up to testify. This is not a bill that is aimed at putting the oil industry out of business. It's a bill that's aimed at giving a voice to some of these communities that have been impacted. And mostly in really finding a way to encourage the industry to use the best technology. And it was interesting to me that no one from the opposition mentioned that cost being overwhelming, that that's something that was impossible to do, an impossible standard.

And it seems like if, you know, certainly in areas that are more dense, that using that better technology is a simple way to sort of get out from within the stipulations of this bill. And so, again, it is a win win. And I do appreciate the robust conversation. I would request an aye vote so we can continue that conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on the vote, please.

Motion is do pass to Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

Thank you.

We'll place that on call. Thank you.

Ting item seven, AB 2244. Yeah, he was there. He missed us. He wanted to come back after spending time with us last week.

Yes. Love it here. Thank you, Mister Chair. AB 2244 would prohibit the use of bisphenol A BPA in paper receipts by January 1, 2025 and all bisphenol chemicals and paper receipts by January 1, 2026. I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments that clarify enforcement provisions on penalties and really appreciate yours and your Committee staff's help on that.

As we all know, we come into contact with patients paper receipts every day, a number of times a day. Most of that paper material is made with BPA or bisphenols. And actually, the way that that is transferred into our body isn't by breathing into it, which is what I had always assumed. It's actually by touching the receipt. So the second you grab the receipt, you touch it, you are coming in and being transferred a very, very toxic and dangerous chemical.

The bill's gonna be implemented, enforced by DTSC, and gives the Attorney General, District Attorney, County Council, or city attorney the ability to enforce this legislation as well. We believe that taking BPA and bisphenols out of the receipts will really be something that will help protect the public. So with that, I have Nancy Buermeyer to be my primary witness.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, chair and Members. Nancy Buermeyer, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

And thank you, Assemblymember Ting, for your continued leadership on this Bill, which would ban all bisphenols in thermal receipt paper. BCPP is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing our exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is, for good reason, one of the better known hazardous chemicals, and today you will see BPA free stickers on numerous products. Unfortunately, all too often, BPA has been replaced with an Alphabet soup of bisphenol substitutes, BPS, BPF, BPAF, and so on.

That is exactly what has happened with thermal paper. A 2023 report found that BPA has largely been replaced by BPS, another case of regrettable substitution. Of the receipts tested, less than 1% contained BPA and nearly 80% contained BPS.

While these substitutes are often less well studied, the more we learn, the better we understand that the entire class of bisphenols has implications for our health, including risk of asthma and hyperactivity in children and cardiovascular disease, fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, and increased risk of breast and other cancers in adults. BPA and BPS are listed on California's Prop 65 as reproductive toxicants and the State of Washington has designated BPA, BPS, and BPF as chemicals of high concern for children.

Bisphenols are absorbed through the skin when handling thermal receipt paper. This exposure is concerning for all consumers. However, the greatest risk is for cashiers, over 70% of which are women. And occupational studies have confirmed that BPA and BPS levels are significantly higher in cashiers. The good news is that the report that I referenced earlier also showed that 20% of the receipts tested are free of all bisphenols. Clearly, alternatives are currently available and in use.

I also want to note and thank that while we appreciate the author and the Committee's efforts to address the opposition's position, we do have some concerns about the particular amendment language and are committed to continue to work with all parties to ensure a workable solution is found that doesn't undermine the intent and goals of the Bill. It's time to remove this entire class of toxic chemicals from thermal receipt paper, by passing AB 2244. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Motion and a second. Is there anyone here in support of AB 2244?

Good morning. Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste. We have a supporting concept with the same understanding as the lead witness. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Emely Garcia with NRDC in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2244?

Chair, Members? RJ Cervantes here. On behalf of the American Force and Paper Association, I want to thank the author for his continued work with us. We're 99% there. We have a meeting tomorrow with his staff just to go over remaining concerned. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition of AB 2240, wait, 2244? Bringing back to Committee any questions or comments. Senator Ting, if you had asked for a prop of a staff member wearing a large receipt with the affirmative consent of that staff member, I would have approved it. That being said, would you like to close?

Not this year, but appreciate that.

Really appreciate your help with the Bill. One final note that I forgot to mention in my opening comment was that because the receipts have BPA or bisphenol, they can't be composted. Makes it very difficult to recycle, and so it just makes it one piece of the waste stream that really cannot be reused. So again, with that respect, fast forward. I vote for AB 2244.

Thank you. Take roll call, please, on AB 2244.

Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll place that on call. Assembly Member Patterson. Yeah, we saw you there in the second round. AB 2255, we have a motion and a second.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members here today to present my bill. Thank you very much. 2255. It's a very simple bill. Right now, our laws create a disincentive to adopt children from foster care at a certain age.

My bill does a lot of things, but most importantly, it removes that disincentive to make sure that parents can adopt their children. And I have with me my, I told her I didn't have a witness today because this bill is actually brought by Placer County Board of Supervisors member, by the way, who's also a foster mom. And so I told my chief of staff, who's also a foster to adopt mom, that she's on deck this morning, this morning. So she has very prepared statement for you.

You know, ready in season and out. Right. You know, we were just chatting last night and I was doing the math. We have adopted two of our four children and our oldest that we adopted, we actually adopted him 13 days short of him turning 16. Because of that, he lost out on all of these benefits. And that didn't persuade us in the moment.

But I look at that and I still remember it was the court that called us and asked us to adopt two children because they'd been split up in the foster care system. Nobody at that time was interested in adopting two older children. And so we opened up our home and were able to move forward with the adoption after they had been in foster care for five years and had lived in several different homes.

And so as we were looking at this bill and Ms. Landon brought it forward, my heart melted a little bit because I thought of also my daughter, who we adopted, who turned 18 at the beginning of her senior year. I couldn't imagine an 18 year old starting their senior year and losing all of their benefits and their support. And so, although we were able to provide for them, there's many, many children that don't have that opportunity.

And I think we all know that there's a crisis right now of older children needing to be adopted. And so I'm honored to be able to speak on the fly in the moment for this really important bill.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2255?

Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition, AB 2255? All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. We do have a motion on the table. Any further questions or comments? Senator Bryan?

I don't know if you're looking for co-authors, Mr. Patterson, but I'm happy to join you. You know, I think, as you know, my parents were foster parents for 26 years and adopted nine of us, including myself. I think what you're doing is righteous and important, and I hear there's already a motion, but I'd like to second, third, or fourth it.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I'd love to have you as a co author.

All right, well, yeah, thank you so much for bringing this forward, and thank you for your on the spot testimony. I think that sometimes when it comes from the heart like that, it's more powerful. And so appreciate you. Madam Secretary, for take roll call on AB. Oh, sorry. Would you like to close?

I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, roll call on AB 2255.

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Up next, item 10, Assembly Member Schiavo. And in the meantime, can we get a motion on the consent calendar? We have a motion and a second. Take roll call, please on the consent calendar.

Those bills are AB 2459 Wilson, as amended to Appropriations, AB 2664 Bryan to Appropriations, AB 2677 Chen, as amended to the floor, AB 2925 Friedman, as amended to Appropriations, AB 2948 Ramos to Appropriations, AB 3004 Mike Fong to Appropriations, AB 3049 Bryan, as amended to Human Services, AB 3100 Low to the floor, AB 3196 Nguyen to the floor, AB 3282 Judiciary to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Great. Consent calendar is out, and so Assemblymember Schiavo, whenever you're ready.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you so much. I'm grateful for the opportunity to present AB 2499 to you today. So you know, we believe that no person should lose a job because they need time to recover from a traumatic event. AB 2499 will ensure that family members of living, direct victims, and survivors of trauma can take unpaid leave and time off to address safety concerns, heal, or support their family. One in six survivors of violent crime report losing their jobs or being demoted because they need to take time off for their traumatic event. 53% of survivors of domestic violence report losing a job because of the abuse. Seven out of 10 victims describe feeling unsafe or scared following victimization.

Low-wage workers, including immigrants, women, non-binary workers, and workers of color who are especially vulnerable to victimization, are also least likely to have existing flexibility or leave protections in their jobs. Although there are some protections, many gaps that leave survivors vulnerable and unprotected remain. AB 2499 will recognize additional reasons survivors need to take unpaid time off from work and allow family members of survivors to take time off to support loved ones. Employers will benefit as well.

Their employees will be less likely to return unproductive or distracted and given the appropriate time to recover. Our goal is to make sure people have greater stability and protections to heal. No one should have to decide between their health, their well-being, and having a job. We are not requesting more sick days or faster accumulation. The cap is for unpaid leave and will stay at 12 weeks, and employees will not be allowed to extend beyond that. And we've clarified that in new amendments.

I'd like to emphasize as well that if the employee were tried to try to take unpaid leave for reasons that are not listed in the bill or current law, then the employer has no obligation to keep the job open for that employee. Also, currently, you know, we know that employers, I know that there are concerns around moving the threshold down from 25 to five employees. Employers already have to make accommodations for things like the FMLA, which applies to five employees or more.

So employers of five employees are more already accustomed to making accommodations, and that is the maximum. No one expects that people are automatically gonna take the maximum amount of time off. But joining me today to also testify is Stephanie Hatten from Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, and also Senior Staff Attorney Katherine Witchett with Legal Aid at Work.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and members. I'm Stephanie Hatten from Stockton, California. I'm here to respectfully support AB 2499. On July 15, my son Antwane was gunned down in front of two of his seven children at his home. The following day, multiple things in our lives changed. His wife and children had three days to move, we hadn't done funeral arrangements, and other things needed to be done. And I was taking care of his seven children that were so traumatized that no one else could even deal with them.

And there were also other family members in the house that I had to meet their expectations and care from them still having to do everything concerning his death, make the arrangements. And then his wife was notified after 16 years of employment that she was terminated.

Had this bill been in place, none of us, including myself, who's been employed for over 30 years as an addiction specialist in our city, and my daughter, who is a registered nurse who gives out medication, and there's no room for error in there. We really could have used that additional time and job protection to take care of our families, and our other family members would have been able to step in and help us as well.

I am here today to respectfully ask that you consider the additional time and protection this resulted in us professional people having to go apply for food stamps after we worked hard in college and established careers so that we wouldn't be a burden. And what I've seen in other families, it's resulting in that. So I ask that you consider this bill so that we can stay functional. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Katherine Wutchiett, and I'm a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work, an organization dedicated to advancing workers' rights. And at our organization, we have a survive helpline where we get calls from survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault who are calling because they're worried about their safety but they can't leave their job.

And it's not surprising given that one in two survivors of domestic violence and one in six survivors of violence end up losing their job, either because of the impacts of violence or needing to take time off related to it. While California has some protections in place for these survivors, they don't go far enough. And this bill fills in those cracks. So first it allows family members of survivors of violence to access leave from work for specific reasons. So it's unpaid leave, capped at 12 weeks.

And it's not just that someone can say, my daughter is experiencing domestic abuse, I'm going to take 12 weeks off from work. It's my daughter's experiencing abuse. I'm going to take a day to help her move from a dangerous home. I'm going to take an afternoon off to go to court with her. Employers are also allowed to ask for written certification of the reason. Additionally, the bill allows more folks to access reasonable accommodations, which are changes at work for the sake of safety.

No employer has to provide them if they're an undue burden and they're only for the purpose of making sure that somebody will be safe. And then finally, the bill streamlines the process for enforcing these rights by allowing survivors to file with the Civil Rights Department. By allowing survivors to file with this department that already enforces other leave and accommodation laws, it'll simplify the process instead of having them file with two agencies, as many currently have to, which can be confusing and harm people in asserting their rights. Nobody should go through what Miss Hatten's family did and nobody should be fired for taking time off from work to find childcare for a grandchild after their parent is gunned down in front of them. These are some of the reasons that we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2499?

Good morning. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Magaly Zagal with Greenberg Traurig on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, in strong support. Also testifying and support for the following organizations, California Work and Family Coalition, Asian Law Alliance, BreastfeedLA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Center for Community Action Environmental Justice, Center for Worker's Rights, Citizens for Choice, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevan Insko, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, also testifying on behalf of Electric Universe, LA Alliance for a New Economy, LA Best Babies Network, the National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles, Orange County Equality Coalition, Parent Voices California, Woman Incorporated, Working Partnerships USA, WorkSafe, and the UFCW Western States Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kalra and committee members. Bryant Maramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Anthony Di Martino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsors. Also in support, Smart Justice California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, members. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2499?

Good morning, Mr Chair and members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. We agree that this is a very, very serious and important issue. And from our perspective, California has and has had for nearly 20 years very robust protections where an employee is a victim or in certain circumstances where their family members are victims of crimes. We agree that there should be protection where safety is an issue. One of our concerns with the bill is that the qualifying reasons that it adds oftentimes relates to scenarios where safety is not an issue or there's not an urgency.

So, for example, current law covers scenarios where the employee is concerned about safety planning or needs to take steps to ensure their safety in the future, the safety of a child, et cetera. So our concern here is that we are also expanding into scenarios that are not necessarily urgent. And that is compounded by the fact that this leave would apply to smaller businesses with just five or more employees.

To the author's point about the FMLA, yes, a couple of years ago, California did expand California's version of FMLA, which is CFRA, to employers with just five or more employees. And I think that actually illustrates our concern as our colleague will expand upon. Small businesses have been subject to nine new leaves in just last four years, including that 12-week leave under CFRA. So this would be the second time in just a couple of years that the Legislature would be imposing a 12-week leave on businesses with just five workers. Thank you.

Thank you. You're done. You're done. Sorry, time's up.

Quite early after all that.

I think that means you can't talk.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli with LA Area Chamber, in respectful opposition. And sorry Assembly members, from my back to you. As Miss Hoffman indicated, our fundamental concern is the additional of another uncapped leave. As Miss Hoffman indicated, the last four years we've had more than a half a dozen additional leaves.

Whether it's the expansion of CFRA down to five, bereavement leave, supplemental paid sick leave, et cetera, a bill like this cannot be viewed in isolation by this committee. You have to put it in that perspective. And not just those nine leaves in the last four years, but the number of labor code revisions, amendments, additions that occur each and every year.

The last dozen or so years that I've been tracking it, we're doing anywhere from 35 to 65 new and expanded labor and employment or labor code provisions each and every year. You know, for large corporations that have HR and in-house legal counsel question whether or not they can handle it. But for small employers, that is a significant burden. So we would ask that you look at this measure in conjunction with all the other leaves and labor code provisions that you've enacted each and every year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2499?

Good morning, Chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jaime Huff with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ben Ebbink with the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Good morning. Ryan Allain with California Retailers Association, respectfully opposed.

Dennis Albiani with the Family Business Association of California, in opposition.

Hi, Natalie Boust with the California Business Roundtable, respectfully opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Madam Assemblywoman, how did you come up again with the 12 weeks and go down to five employees? What was the rationale?

So part of the reason to move to five employees, excuse me, is that that's the standard for other leaves that are covered by the Fair Employment and Housing Act. So we, you know, it's confusing, I think, when you have different standards, different and different things for both employees and employers to understand. And so we wanted to make that consistent. And I think there's a lot of conversations happening right now around retail theft, around people experiencing trauma when that happens in their stores.

And a number of businesses are smaller where these things might happen. Right? And so we want to make sure that everyone who could be impacted is covered and is affected. I know that there, additionally, I hear the opposition, they're trying to kind of combine this with a number of other policies that have happened right to make it a lot bigger than it is.

But I think it's actually not that big because there's only been 215 complaints to the Labor Commission in the last three years around survivor benefits. That's 70 a year. This is not something that's going to tank small businesses in the State of California. This is not a huge, fortunately, not a huge issue.

But we shouldn't have situations like this where someone who's a professional or not, who has lost their job and their ability to provide for their family because they're taking care of the children who have been traumatized by a terrible event. So we don't think that this is a widespread need. But when it is a need, people should have this right to retain their job and get the care and protection that they need.

Well, I'm certainly sympathetic to any adverse situation and traumatic situation.

I don't know how many people here have run a small business. Five people. One is gone for 12 weeks. I mean, you say doesn't harm business. Unless you're a small business owner, I don't know how anyone can say that.

I'm a small business owner, actually, and I grew up in a family of small business owners.

Well, then you have an appreciation for that and I appreciate that. And that was a fortunate situation to recover if someone was gone. Not only that, but other employees do have sick days. I mean, in a small company with only five employees, conceivably can, everybody's out with COVID or measles or some kind of cold situation. I mean, five doesn't give you much latitude to really have a workforce that is consistent and sustained. And the 12 weeks, I mean, I think for the victim, absolutely. Also, I don't forget that employees have vacation time. They have flexible daytime. Most vacation personal days have now been consolidated into a flexible work time.

And so sometimes up to three weeks, four weeks, depending on the size of the company course and the wherewithal of the company and those benefits. So I just, particularly in a company that has only five employees, a small business, there's really a personal relationship with the employer. And sitting down and saying, you know, my brother, my family, my, this has this terrible situation. Can I just have an extended unpaid leave?

And it may just be a week or two weeks, but there's more of a personal interaction. Granted, large companies can perhaps handle this, but nonetheless, it's still a cost. It's just one more cost to business. And it's becoming so apparent to me that we do a little bit here and a little bit there and pretty soon that business has gone to Arizona. And that happens, I mean, we've seen it.

We know that there is an unemployment situation in California because many of the employers have left the onerous anti-business climate in California. So I'm sympathetic, I think it doesn't have my opinion, it doesn't have to be 12 weeks. And I would like to exclude small business and possibly consider an amendment to minimum of 50 or 100 employees. Small businesses are barely hanging on today with all these regulations and costs of doing business and doing business in California.

One more chip away at trying to be a successful business that provides jobs for people. So I appreciate your intent and the empathy that we all have for people in traumatic and victims, people in traumatic situations. But we also have to balance that with the economic need of a small business and just the management of a small business.

And I would say that it is really totally unacceptable for any employer to deny an employee or their family member to get through a very difficult time with some relief. I just say in a small business you could work together to sort these things out if needed. But anyway, I just think it's onerous and it's a burden on all business, but especially small business. So thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

I agree it's unacceptable to deny leave, which is why we have this bill. And I think that like you said, small businesses are having to figure out people taking off for COVID, people taking off for family medical leave, people taking off for all kinds of other things. Right? This is something that already small businesses figure out. I grew up in a family with a small business, and sometimes my dad was the only employee and sometimes he had 10 or 15 employees. Right? Either way, that would definitely impact him and be a hardship.

He had electrical contractor business, and finding electricians is not easy to replace. So I understand that and I empathize with that. But this is something that is figured out all the time. And like I said, there's no burning building here. It's 70 complaints a year. We're talking about a State of 39 million people. This is not a huge issue that small businesses are facing or dealing with, fortunately, because we don't want it to be a huge issue that our community is facing. And so it's really negligible. We talk about budget dust. This is time off dust that we're talking about in the scheme of things in the State of California. And so I just don't see this, this overwhelming impact of small businesses that's being talked about by opposition.

May I just make one more comment? I appreciate that. In terms of the facts and the prior experience, my observation is once laws are created, then suddenly everybody thinks, oh, well, we could go after that. So I do not rely on the conditions or the situations that drove the 70 reports, because once you create a law, then it just creates a desire to utilize the provisions of that law. And I think that will just invite more opportunities for people to use this, and maybe rightfully so, but on the other hand, to make it a requirement, wish it would be encouraged or suggested, but not required, that's people's livelihoods. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. And you may not know the answer to this, so sorry to put you on the spot, but the 70, do we have any idea how big those businesses were?

That information is named the labor customers reports.

That's what I thought. So sorry to ask a question you may not know the answer to. I was just curious. And then my second question is, so I was here when we did the CFRA expansion. I was one of the votes that got it over the line, to be honest with you, because I really thought it was critically important that people, even at businesses of five had that leave. When I made that vote, I'll be honest with you, I didn't think I was setting a precedent forever. So hindsight is 2020. And I want to say we went further and we created a mandatory mediation program for small businesses in that bill.

Because as a former attorney, one of the things that concerned me was, yes, 70 businesses in California isn't a lot. If it's 70 small businesses, a lawsuit against a small business can shut them down. And so we actually created this mandatory mediation program that we're extending this year because it was incredibly successful. That required that there would be a way to avoid lawsuits for small businesses, that the workers could get their rights vindicated, they could get answers to the questions.

But small businesses who don't have HR departments, who don't have expensive lawyers, who don't understand the myriad of regulations we place on them could have a way to avoid the cost of litigation, which is real, especially for a small business, which I'm sure you're aware. My real concern here is that we're just piling on to these businesses of five or more that don't have the capacity to comply with all of these legal frameworks. And so you said we're already doing it. We are.

I know I voted for the bill that made it possible to do this for five employees, but there are still places where we have capped it at 25. I don't think it's across the board at five. But correct me if I'm wrong. Anybody? Okay. So I guess I'm not comfortable lowering this to five employees because I do think that for those 70 small businesses, it could be the end of them. And yes, that's not a ton of businesses, but for me, it's enough.

And I think that what I balance in these bills is, and I want to say, I'm so sorry, you have been through more than any human should have to bear, and that should be corrected. And there's no question about that. I also know that the largest employer in the State of California is our small businesses. And if we don't keep that ecosystem healthy, the livelihood of the people that work in those small businesses is also at risk.

So how do we keep that ecosystem healthy while also ensuring people like your witness here today have what they need? And I guess I've always felt, and maybe this is naive of me, but in my experience with small businesses, they're like families. And the small businesses are probably the first to go out and accommodate people. And it's the big companies that are going to say no. Right? I mean, I guess that's my gut. And so, you know, I just think that we can do both.

And we're not yet here in this bill, and so I'm not there yet. But I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I agree with you. I think that people need to take care of their lives, and we need a working ecosystem that allows for that. But I think that we can have a bill with better balance.

So I also share the same concerns for our small businesses. And just from reading the analysis right now, it's prohibited that employer with 25 or more employees be allowed. They should allow their employees to take some time off from work to deal with certain issues, medical attention for injuries, and domestic violence. So there's already protection for the victim. And I understand this bill would allow family members to also have the same protection, but currently, it's 25 employers with 25 or more employees. So is there a reason to decrease it from 25 to five?

Yeah, like I stated earlier, I think that it's just, you know, especially when we're talking about retail theft, some of those employers are smaller, smaller employers. Right? And if you have something that happens in a 7-Eleven. Right? And they're victims of or survivors of trauma, then they should have their jobs protected as well while they're doing things to address their safety and health. So we just want to make sure that workers in California are not losing their jobs because they experience trauma in their lives.

And my concern is for those small businesses. I had a small business prior to come up here as an attorney, and my employees were like family to me. Granted, I only had two employees, but they were like family. So if they needed time off and it wasn't just for like an emergency, sometimes it was because they had school, they had to study for school, I would let them have time off.

So my concern is this impact on small businesses, and I know you said there's a about 70 complaints per year. We don't know what kind of employers, given that currently it only affects employers with 25 or more employees. So currently the law wouldn't even affect small businesses, and now we're decreasing it to five or more employees. So my concern is more about small businesses and how it would be impacted, given that now they'd be required to give, at maximum, 12 weeks time off.

And granted, I know the testimony was that they could, it would be dependent on how much time the person needed. But it's not specified here, and I know it says that in analysis, it's not specified that it depends on what is reasonable for whatever is occurring in that person's life or in their, you know, their family member's life. So I do have serious concerns about the small businesses that would be impacted.

I mean, I guess I'll just say one thing, because I hear people being concerned about small businesses, but then at the same time, I hear everyone saying small businesses are like a family, which has been my experience, too. And you give people time off for homework. And so why wouldn't we give people time off if they have suffered from trauma? Why would we not give them time off to take care of their son's children who are going through trauma? Right? Why would we not do that?

And so I think that that's probably happening is what's happening. Right? I think that this is probably not really a big issue. I know that a lot of times discussions when it comes to things that impact businesses are focused on small businesses. But in fact, it is the large corporations who are behind a lot of the opposition. And I would expect that that's what's happening here. And I'm not, I think that they will be okay.

I think that the large businesses can give leave to the few people in the State of California who are going to need leave for this purpose. I don't think it's going to overwhelm anyone. I don't think it's going to put anyone out of business. And I think that probably when it comes to small businesses, that they are already accommodating people when they go through something like this, because it is like a family member who is going through trauma and you want to support them. Right?

So in those few instances where an employer will actually replace you for experiencing trauma, we want to make sure they're protected. And that is what this bill is really aiming to do. And I want to also give my witness an opportunity to respond if she has anything additionally, too.

Yeah. Thank you. I did want to clarify that the bill does say that your job is protected only if you're taking time off for the covered reason. So it's not the status gives you the right to 12 weeks, it's that you have the right to take time off for those specific reasons. And I think it's worth noting as well that if somebody is going through one of these circumstances, what the bill does is make sure if they take time off that they won't be fired.

You know, there's no guarantee that that employee is going to come to work on the day that their daughter's being abused at home and they need to go help. It's just whether or not the employer is going to fire them for doing that. And to the point of the California Family Rights Act moving from 50 employees to five, it was wonderful, the bill. It's good that it's supporting those workers.

And the Civil Rights Department that enforces that provision tracks the number of complaints that are made under the California Family Rights Act each year. And in the year that it went to five employees from 50 employees. The number of complaints didn't actually increase which to us says that employers are capable of providing this leave.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or motions? We have a motion and we have a second. Thank you everyone for the important debate on this. It does have an aye recommendation for the reasons that the author stated and that although it may be an expansion, I think the volume of incidents in which it would actually be exercised is probably pretty low. But in the few cases that it would be, we can see examples of who it's there to protect. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the questions and concerns. I hope that we've been able to address them and really show that the scope of the impact of this bill while I think small to the business community is very big and families and individuals lives who are threatened with losing their job because they have experienced trauma or supporting a family member with trauma and so respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Item six, AB 2224. Whenever you're ready.

Yeah. Thank you Mister chairs, for waiting for your direction. I appreciate it. First, I want to thank the Committee chair and the staff and Committee Members who have helped to put input in this Bill. Very simple and plain. Special Immigrants Juvenile Status, commonly referred to as SIJS, provides limited immigration relief for vulnerable undocumented children and young people who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by one or both of their parents. This Bill just simply seeks to extend social services to this population.

And second, it seeks to combat the backlog by ensuring clarity and expediency in two simple ways to ensure that this population gets a court order the same day it's granted to ensure the reduction of delays in filing their petition and clarifies that the court can appoint a non abusive parent as a child's guardian. Mister chair, I've decided to be brief given the length of the other one, but I could give you a long version if you'd like. Certainly. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'm sure Members can ask you to elaborate if they feel the need. Is there anyone else? Is there anyone here in support of AB 2224? We have a motion and a second.

Yes, please. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition? AB 2224 all right, we have a motion. Any other question or comments from Committee? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. And again, didn't want to be disrespectful to the Committee but aye wanted to present, in the interest of time, a brief presentation.

No, aye appreciate it. Thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. [Roll Call] okay, that Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have a motion on item one, AB 2089 Holden? We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, if you take roll on the vote for AB 2089, please.

Motion's do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll place that on call. Item 2, AB 2148, Low. You have a motion and a second

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. Item five, AB 2223, Aguiar-Curry. A motion and a second.

Do pass through Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill is out. Item 12, AB 2606, Aguiar-Curry. We have a motion and a second.

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Item 21, Wood, AB 3218. We have a motion and a second.

So do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out.

Thank you, Chair, Members. Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

Unfortunately, and this is one reason why we have the industry support from the American Fence Association, all of these different designs for these gates have led to fatalities. So I won't go through the whole list. Alex was obviously here in San Rafael. You saw Assembly Member Connolly talk about the child who just died in Tucson.

Members, today I'm proud to present AB 2149 which will be known as Alex's Law. In 2019, we suffered a tragedy in Marin County. Seven year old Alex Kwanbach was at his school playing with his friends and went to close a 300 pound gate to stop their football from rolling into the nearby alley. As he started to roll, the gate closed. The gate came off its rails and fell and crushed Alex, killing him. This, unfortunately, is a not uncommon occurrence in California and throughout the country.

Just last November, tragedy struck again in Tucson, Arizona, when a nine year old girl was helping close a gate at her school, which came loose from its support and fell and killed her. There are no existing statewide or federal laws requiring heavy duty gates to be inspected or repaired on a regular basis. Without any protections, when a gate is poorly designed, damaged or just overused, it has a risk of disconnecting from its supports and falling.

These gates can be up to 20 or 30ft long, up to 8ft tall. They often weigh between 300 to 400 pounds, making it almost impossible for someone crushed underneath to lift the gate and escape. AB 2149 calls for these gates to be installed with a positive stop, literally a $50 piece of metal that stops a gate from toppling over if it becomes separated from its track. This bill only applies to gates that weigh more than 50 pounds and larger than 4ft wide or 7ft tall.

It will be the responsibility of the gate owner to make sure their gate is inspected every five years, and local building officials will only have to become involved in egregious cases. The bill also gives local building officials and building departments the ability to recoup the costs of the bill through fines against the gate owner for failing to have their gate inspected and repaired in a timely manner.

We have worked to try and apply this bill to those gates that are likely to impact the public at large. I'm committed to working with the agriculture industry to find a compromise that will respect the unique needs of agriculture while keeping employees and the public safe. With me to testify today is Eric Quanbeck the father of Alex Quanbeck and co owner of the Hummingbird Alliance, and Rob Epstein with the City of San Rafael, which has already implemented some of the measures outlined in this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Connolly, and thank you to the Committee and the staff for giving me an opportunity to address you. So I'd like to start with just giving you a sense of the size and scale of these gates. So I apologize in advance for the props. It's not to be dramatic, but this gate here on the bottom left, this is the gate that fell on my son.

So to give you a sense, this fence at Mark Day School, which is a private school in San Rafael, was built in response to Sandy Hook. As you can imagine, many schools across the state and California are putting in gates and fences for security perspectives. However, the challenge is when you design these gates and fences, you often have to design them for pedestrian access. The football, this is concrete. He wasn't playing on concrete. There was a grass field where he was playing football.

The reason this fence and slash gate is so long and high is because you have to enable first responders to be able to get onto a school ground. So when you build a gate of this size and magnitude, the weight becomes very dangerous if it were to fall off of the actual fence that it's attached to. So in the case of my son, at the risk of being dramatic, this 300 pound gate fell off of the fence. He was a 60 pound child at the time.

He was in first grade. It fell onto his head and he went to cardiac arrest immediately on the school playground. Unfortunately, Alex is not alone. And so when you look at this map up here, this is across the country. Other incidences where we've seen fatalities from falling gates. Now, there's been questions about are they manual gates, are they swinging gates? Are they automatic?

This case in Moab, at the risk of being a little too graphic, this was a national case where a woman was decapitated by a swinging gate that came through her car windshield when she was outside of Arches National park. Here in, excuse me, Las Vegas. This was a boy who was crushed by an automatic gate. The motor obviously kept closing the gate when the child was in between the gate and the fence.

So the takeaway here is not obviously to keep reminiscing about all of these deaths, but to see what we can do as a society to make these gates safer. If I take one thing from my son's death and the reason we started the Hummingbird Alliance is the actual fix, right? To prevent these gates from causing fatalities is basically two $50 parts. So here you can see highlighted in orange, this is the false stop post.

You can see this is a manual gate that would slide back and forth. Had this part, which is dollar 50, been adhered to, this gate, my son would be here with me today and I wouldn't be in front of you. This mechanism right here, this little wire cord that goes around the swing gate, this would have kept the woman alive in Moab that I talked about earlier in my remarks. I have confidence that this bill and this law will save people.

I actually spoke to the Tucson police officer who was in charge of investigating the death in Tucson. He said had this law been implemented in Tucson, she would be alive today. And the last thing I'll close with, and I know I'm being a little verbose, is there's already industry standards from ASTM and UL 325 that we're just trying to implement in law at the statewide level. And that's why we have the support of the industry. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for sharing and for your advocacy.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you here today. I'm Rob Epstein. I've been the elected city attorney of San Rafael for the past 17 years. I'm joined here today by Don Jepson, our chief building official. Also in the audience is Eric Bledsoe, a member of the American Fence Association and the man who was charged with the initial investigation of the cause of Alex's death.

As a native of San Rafael and a attorney working for the city, I was aware, of course, of this incident when it occurred. But what I did not understand was how it occurred. And when I learned that this issue is so unknown because when you look at a gate, if you don't know, you wouldn't understand that when it slides past the stop point, if it doesn't have these tools attached to it, it'll fall and hurt somebody.

And once I realized it, I thought, oh my God, this is something that most people wouldn't understand or know. People like Don would, but people like me wouldn't. And when we realized that in San Rafael, we said, we got to do something about it.

And I'm proud to say we were the first city to enact a local ordinance that addressed the issue, drafted by Don, who can tell you all the technical details, and we then persuaded all of our other cities in Marin County to do the same. But it's not enough.

We really need a state law, not only to ensure that this issue is addressed by inspection by people that are going to be addressing it throughout the state, but also just to inform people by enacting a law like this will get more people educated about the issue. I want to just close by analogizing to SB 721, which arose from an incident that you'll all recall in Berkeley when a number of students were killed when a balcony fell.

It's similar to me because it's, again an issue that us laypeople wouldn't recognize. But then once it happened, we became aware of it, and this Legislature enacted a law to address it. I think it's a perfect analogy here. I really urge the Committee to pass this bill so that we can make it state law. Don's here to answer questions. Thank you.

No, I appreciate it. Anyone else here in support of AB 2149?

Good morning. My name is Eric Bledsoe. I investigated three cases in California that led to a death and two injuries. Member of American Fence Association, and I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to AB 2149?

Good morning. Tracy Ryan with the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent the 40 rural counties in California. Regrettably, we do have an oppose unless amended on this bill. In addition to numerous technical issues with how the bill is drafted related to how local permitting process works, the bill doesn't actually require these important safety measures in the most apparent setting, which is schools. Our concern with this bill actually, though, is more encompassing than the technical issues.

The regulated gates in this bill, as stated by the author, is 50 pounds and then 48 wide or 84 high. That would be an uncountable number of gates in our communities, especially the rural ones. And in addition, what has been presented has been heavy gates. Heavy gates are a problem consistently throughout what has been talked about. It's 200 to 300 pound gates. What's actually regulated in this bill is 50 pounds.

And again, going back to the number of gates that that would be in our communities. About the workload for counties, and that's where, you know, our constituency, where our concerns really lie. And what was putting put in the analysis is true that this doesn't seem to be a large workload and that we can be reimbursed for the money that is spent on doing this, unfortunately, these are things that are problematic and is already known to have issues in local government with permitting. We have permitting backlogs.

In fact, there is a bill going through the Legislature right now that will require us to have private parties do inspections because we are so behind. As far as being reimbursed for the costs associated with this bill, again, there are numerous bills going through the Legislature right now that will, in one way or another limit our ability to recoup costs.

And I will wrap it up to say that we just feel that this is overly broad and we look forward to working with the Member and unfortunately, we do remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Committee Members. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute. First, I want to offer my condolences to the family. That was a tragic accident that no one would want to go through. Most of California's 6,200 wineries would have gates that would be subject to this bill. Those gates are used to limit access to facilities for employee safety and also for theft prevention reasons.

California law already requires that employers maintain a safe and healthful workplace for their employees, and they do that through a written effective injury and illness prevention program. And so if the gates are presenting a potential risk to their employees, they are already required to be addressing those risks through their IIPP. This bill would add costs both through the requirement to have all gates weighing over 50 pounds and wider than 48 inches or taller than 84 inches inspected every five years.

But also wineries would have to use their staff time to hire a professional to come out and conduct the inspection, accompany that professional on the inspection. And just to give a sense, so 4,000 wineries in California have nine or fewer employees. So this is an impact on small businesses. I appreciate the discussion in the Committee analysis about questioning whether this applies to agricultural operations, but the plain definition of commercial means occupied or engaged in commerce.

And because agriculture is raising something to sell and put in the stream of commerce, we believe that they would be subject to the requirements in the bill. And finally, as Ms. Ryan noted, the bill appears to exclude schools from the requirements despite a tragic accident at a school being the impetus. We would urge that the bill be limited just to schools to address the issue and exclude businesses and let current standards be business safety standards be meeting that requirement. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2149?

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association of California, Seed Association, and several other agricultural interests, but also the Family Business Association of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Katie Little with the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the California Forestry Association with an oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Erin Norbert on behalf of the Almond Alliance and also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danny Merkley with the Gualco group, on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. We have an opposed unless amended along with our CRC.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tricia Garringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the California Building Officials with concerns. Thank you to the sponsor for working with us on those.

Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. All right, back to Committee. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Okay, let's clear this up. Are schools exempt? Because that's not my understanding, and if it is, I assume you want to fix that, Mr. Connolly.

Yeah. So schools obviously are not exempt. Okay, so I appreciate that argument, but that was an issue raised by the bill analysis, which I thought was great. The broader issue is what will be the definition of gate that is applied here. We will certainly talk about amendments to the broader issue being presented as well.

My sense, and I'm just brainstorming out loud here, is if you're an agricultural entity in a far reaching rural area, very few members of the public coming to your site, and precautions are in place, that's one thing. If you're a winery that is open to thousands of people coming through and you have an unsafe gate, I would be hard pressed to understand why some simple inspection and repair work would not be appropriate. So we will be continuing the discussion.

My sense is largely it will be around gate definition. Rest assured schools will be included and then we'll talk about other aspects. But that's kind of where I could see it going.

So can I just follow? So I agree. I actually want to give a shout out to Committee. I thought the analysis was fabulous as well. And I thought, and again, I want to reiterate what's been said today. I'm so sorry for your loss, and thank you Assembly Member, for honing in on the safety of our kids. That is, I think, our number one charge here. Right. So you found a hole in that. That's really critical.

But I do think the analysis did a really good job of saying, well, OSHA's got workers covered, you know, if it's not open to the public does it address the concern you have here? And that there are ways to narrow it such that it is focused on where the public has access and there is a real risk to our kids and the public. And so I guess that's where I'm hoping the bill will go. I guess there's also a question about 50 pounds versus 200 pounds.

I don't know if you want your expert to address that. That seems beyond the scope of my knowledge. But I do think that, I do think that we can do what needs to be done here and protect the public, while also saying, if you are, you know, I have 50 plus wineries in my district. Most are not open to the public. Most grow grapes and sell wine. I mean, some are open to the public, but not all.

So there is a distinction, even in the wine industry, as it relates to what the public has access to. So I guess that sounds like the direction you're going. Is that correct? Okay, yeah, sorry.

Just one thing I want to clear up. So, on OSHA, I don't know if you're familiar, but I've been working with Joseph Alioto, who's on the board of OSHA, for your benefit. There's been three deaths which aren't on this graphic in California alone from falling gates at OSHA regulated work sites. So to your point, the challenge we have right now in the OSHA law is it's quite vague in terms of these safety mechanisms that are needed to keep gates from falling. In fact, they don't exist.

So OSHA, I don't want to get ahead of my skis, is hopefully going to amend some of their language as well to cover this. At the risk of being too graphic, where I would push back on the 50 versus 200 pound debate. Alex was a 60 pound child. I don't think any parent here would want to take the risk of saying that hundred pound gate doesn't need to be regulated if it fell on my child.

What causes the issue here is the speed of these gates at that height falling at the speed of gravity. So it's not so much the weight. It's 8ft tall falling on a four foot child right at the speed of gravity. That's what causes the fatality. And then the other comment, too, about schools. The last thing I'll say, if you look at that map, there's only two incidences at schools. So the boy in Sacramento was at his home. The kid in Mukilteo was at a church, synagogue.

And so when you think about multifamily residential, people build these gates constantly to provide a sense of protection and safety, and that's why they exist. Apartment buildings, commercial buildings, residential, et cetera.

And I will say that my synagogue just put one up for reasons that won't surprise anybody in this room. And now you gave me a new thing to be afraid of as a parent.

You're going to go inspect it.

But that is, I mean, that's why I think open to the public really is sort of a good standard. And I do think that workplaces should be protected. There's no question. I do think that is the role of OSHA, as noted by the analysis. And I've done a bill myself that instructs OSHA to update regulations, which was the recommendation of the Committee, which I think is actually a good one.

So I think that work can be done on this bill to get at the protections that children need. Again, I'm not going to weigh on them versus 300, because I think you guys know better. But I do think the move to really focus on the gates that are most at risk to the public is where we should go. So thank you.

So San Rafael's local amendment doesn't have a weight factor. We based it on size. There's a couple reasons for that. Practically, an inspector out in the field doesn't have an accurate way to weigh a gate. So we based it on size. However, in the amendment process, it was determined that perhaps there should be a size. And I think, as Eric mentioned, a 50 pound gate accelerating at the speed of gravity to the ground could impact somebody negatively. But we can look at those options.

Thank you. Senator Pacheco.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. This is an important bill, and I'm sorry for your loss, and I'm glad you're here to be a witness on behalf of this bill. But I did read the analysis very. It's great analysis. I hate to reiterate my colleagues points, but I did notice in the analysis, it discusses about having it apply to only those properties that are open to the public. I like that idea of narrowing it down, the bill.

I do think it's a great bill. I will be supporting the bill today, but I think that maybe that's an area that can be worked upon so that way, you know, other industries won't be impacted, especially if they're not open to the public. But I commend the author for bringing this bill forward. It's an important bill, especially if it's going to save children's lives. So thank you so much for this bill.

I also want to commend the author. The author has been incredibly amenable to suggestions, thoughts, amendments, and I'm confident that those conversations will continue in a productive way if this bill moves forward. I think this bill certainly deserves the opportunity for that continued dialogue with opposition. Some of the issues, concerns raised here, some of the issues or thoughts in the staff analysis.

And so I'm confident that our author here is going to continue to work on this and to ensure the intention of the bill still remains intact. And that's really to protect, not just children, protect the general public from hazards that can be avoided. I think we'll be able to find the right spot for this, and I think we're pretty close, quite frankly. Is there a motion on this? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary. Oh. Would you like to close, Senator Connolly?

I think you did for me, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all the Members for your thoughtful comments, the witnesses. We certainly will continue to work on this and really go forward with the ultimate goal of ensuring that no other families have to face this kind of tragedy. And I particularly want to thank Eric on behalf of his family for coming today. And I look forward to continuing with the work ahead on this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

I think we have Assemblymember Carrillo's here. AB-2699. Yeah. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments and thank your staff for working with mine to complete those. And I'm proud to present AB-2699 which will offer regulatory clarity in the California Accidental Release Program, or CalARP, while also raising the penalties on those who endanger communities when they violate the law.

The California Accidental Release Program began in the late 1990s and is intended to keep surrounding communities safe from the releases of hazardous materials from facilities that handle, use, store, or manufacture them in large quantities.

The program requires that these facilities have a risk management plan in the event of a release, and that in the event of a release, they also inform the state and the unified program agency officials at the local fire department immediately so that appropriate measures can be taken and needed information can be given to the public. However, the maximum daily fine for non-compliance with the California Accidental Release Program is only $5,000 for these large facilities.

As a result, our fire officials report that there have been multiple instances where bad actors have decided that $5,000 is okay for their bottom line and avoid having to publicly report a release that could threaten health and safety in nearby communities. This Bill will set a new maximum daily find of 20,000 or 30,000 if a violation is committed knowingly in line with federal and other unified program agency imposed fines.

This Bill will also make it easier for covered entities to remain in compliance by clarifying thresholds of when state and local officials need to be notified of an accidental release, as the state was directed to do so with past legislation. To be clear, this Bill isn't about accessing fines for a release itself. It's about ensuring that the proper steps are followed to protect the public when one occurs. Here to talk more about the need for the Bill and answer any question is Dennis Karidis, Supervising Environmental Specialist at the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's my honor to address you today as a representative of the California Cooper Foreign Board and the 81 Certified Unified Program Agencies, CUPAs, and their participating agencies. We are pleased to sponsor and strongly support AB-2699 which seeks to expedite the adoption of regulations that will clarify the thresholds for the reporting of hazardous materials releases across the state.

Pursuant to SB-1261, the California Office of Emergency Services, OES was directed to adopt regulations by January 1, 2016. Detailing what releases are to be reported to the CUPAs. These regulations have yet to be adopted, leaving both the regulated community and local regulators unsure of how to implement the law. Given that the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, CalEPA, oversees the entire unified program and has adopted implementing regulations for other aspects of the unified program.

AB-2699 will transfer the responsibility of rulemaking and enforcement oversight for release reporting from OES to CalEPA on January 1, 2025. The California Accidental Release Prevention Program, CalART, facilities represent the highest risk and pose the greatest potential for threat of immediate harm to public and the environment from accidental releases of extremely hazardous materials.

Because the current CalArt civil and administrative penalties do not adequately reflect this threat and are significantly lower than penalties for the hazardous waste generator program and US EPA's risk management program rule. The Cooper form board strongly supports a commensurate increase in these penalties, to ensure that the regulated community has time to adjust to the new regulations. AB-2699 would delay the increase in the penalties for the release reporting under Health and Safety Code 2510 for 12 months after the final adoption of the regulations referred to above.

The Cooper Forum Board and the California Association of Environmental Health Directors respectfully ask for your. aye vote. Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in support of AB-2699? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB-2699? All right, bring it back to Committee. Are there motions, comments, questions? We have a motion. Do we have a second? And a second. All right, we're moving now. Here we go. Assemblymember Carrillo, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Members. This Bill is about ensuring that releases of hazardous materials could require first responders and the public to take precautions. Are communicated to state and local officials as soon as possible. Respectfully request and I vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass through appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out.

Thank you.

Item 14, AB-2705. Ortega. Okay, let's see. We have a motion and a second.

My technical support is on their way. Okay, I'll keep going. Thank you. Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB-2705 which will ensure that the Labor Commissioner has time to recover unpaid wages for workers who are subject to wage theft on public work projects. We know that wage theft in the construction industry is a significant problem.

The Public Works Unit of the Labor Commissioner's Bureau of Field Enforcement, charged with investigating complaints arising from violations of prevailing wage and apprenticeship laws opened nearly 2,000 cases for back waged owed to workers in 2020 and 21 and assessed over 10.6 million in penalties.

Under existing law, when the Labor Commissioner finds a violation of prevailing wage for requirements on a project, the Labor Commissioner has 18 months to determine the amount of fines and penalties to be assessed but only six months to sue the company that bonded the project. This inconsistency in the two statute of limitations means the Labor Commissioner could be in the middle of an assessment and run out of time to recover the wages owed to the workers from the bonding company.

Workers should not suffer for potentially significant loss of wages due to an unintentional inconsistency in the law. AB-2705 simply aligns the two statutes of limitations so that the Labor Commissioner has up to 18 months to both make the assessment and sue the bonding company to recover workers' wages. I don't have any witnesses with me today. I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in support of AB-2705?

Good morning Chair and Members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Mike Monaghan, on behalf of State Building Trades. In support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman of Members. Matt Kremens, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. In strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB-2705.

Lonely up here. Mr. Chair and Members. Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association. We are the largest group of union signatory building contractors in the state. We are respectfully opposed to the measure. It's worth noting that you're going to be hearing AB-2135 on the floor soon. That extends the statute of limitations to 24 months or indefinitely at the discretion of DIR. So under this measure you'd have an indefinite bond. That's a problem for a host of reasons.

The financial impact for my members who are very large contractors will be quite small. But as the Legislature often talks about the impediments for small and emerging contractors and public works projects, it's worth noting that bonding capacity is the number one impediment. So with this measure you are going to make it more difficult for these small and emerging contractors to bond. They won't be able to perform this work.

So it would be helpful to understand before we pursue this, of the 85% of prevailing wage wages that are actually collected by DIR, which is an extraordinarily high percentage, what percentage of those are collected against the bond, against the actual employer, or pursuant to joint and several liability. Because if I would guess most are collected through the employer or through joint and several, in which case the bonding really won't have much of an impact here.

So before we create yet another impediment for small and emerging contractors, I say we understand where the deficiencies lie and address that then. So for these reasons we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB-2705? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. We do have a motion. Any other questions or comments? Would you like to close, Assemblymember Ortega?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on AB-2705.

Due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright, that Bill is out. Up next, item 15. AB-2761. Hart.

Thank you, miss. Madam Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 2761 a Bill to reduce toxics in packaging. In 2021, the US Plastics Pact, a coalition of over 100 industry leaders and key stakeholders, including well known companies such as Nestle, Unilever, Walmart, and Target, have identified numerous unnecessary plastic packaging materials and additives. These include substances such as PFAS, PVC and PVDC.

Industry stakeholders have also voluntarily pledged to eliminate these harmful materials from their products by 2025. Despite this goal, the use of PFAS, PVC and PVDC in packaging is still prevalent in California. With your permission, Madam Chair, I'd like to use some props and provide some examples. Here's a sample of polyvinyl chloride packaging. For the average consumer, the tougher plastic is simply an inconvenience to cut through. Now compare this with packaging from the same company, but packaged in PET. It's identical.

The distinctions might not be immediately apparent, but the crucial difference lies in the chemicals used during the production process and the toxins released during the disposal. The production of PVC involves the use of vinyl chloride, asbestos, and phthalates, toxic compounds that have been linked to cancer and neurological damage. PET, on the other hand, is a safer, less toxic and recyclable alternative. I also have two paper plates, one coated in PFAS and the other without.

They look virtually identical and the underlying health implications associated with each are very, very different. As the Committee is well aware, PFAS has been linked to developmental issues in children, various forms of cancer, immune system suppression, and other detrimental health impacts. Recognizing the health impacts of PFAS, five states have proactively banned PFAS and food packaging to ensure California does not trail behind other states. AB 2761 will reduce exposure to toxic chemicals by banning the sale of PFAS, PVC and PVDC in packaging starting in 2026.

The measure will require the use of safer alternatives, encourage the adoption of packaging practices to better protect public health and the environment. Speaking in support today are Nancy Bermire, representing breast cancer prevention partners, and Chris Scroggin with Republic Services.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Assemblymember Hart, for your leadership on this important Bill. AB 2761 Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. That means approximately 32,000 Californians will be diagnosed and 4600 Californians will die each year from this devastating disease.

Science has shown that polyvinyl chloride or PVC, and PVDC and the class of PFAS chemicals are linked to numerous health harms, including breast cancer. PVC has a variety of packaging uses including blister packs, as you just saw, clamshells and plastic wraps. No plastic creates more harmful exposure for workers, communities, consumers and the planet than the lifecycle of PVC. PVC production uses highly toxic chemicals including deadly chlorine gas and the carcinogen vinyl chloride.

PVC often includes chemical additives such as hormone disrupting phthalates or bisphenols, which leach out of the packaging into products, food and the environment exposing consumers. Burning PVC, whether in incinerators or landfill fires, releases highly toxic and carcinogenic dioxins. Disposing of PVC in landfills also releases toxic chemicals into air and water. Given these harms, we should reduce the use of PVC and PFAs whenever possible, including from packaging. AB 2761 would also ban PFAS from packaging

this committee has heard for years or this Legislature has heard for years about the toxicity of PFAS and has acted to ban PFAS from numerous product categories. AB 2761 will continue to reduce those exposures. You will hear from opposition that we should leave plastic to SB 54. But SB 54 is about recycling, not health and won't fully remove these highly toxic substances from packaging. Only by bypassing AB 2761 will consumers get the protection they need and deserve. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you mister chair and members of the committee, Chris Scroggin on behalf of Republic Services. First, we want to thank fellow Member Hart for introducing this important measure and as stated by the author, AB 2761 takes an essential step step forward in the state's effort to eliminate two particularly harmful types of plastic packaging, those containing PFAS and PVC and PVDC. The manufacturing and disposal of these toxic plastics represents a substantial threat to both human and environmental health.

By removing these toxic chemicals and packaging, the bill will require the use of safer alternatives encourage the adoption of packaging practices that are better to prevent protect the public health and the environment. These problematic plastics are either hazardous to human health, make plastic packaging hard to recycle, or both. PFAS, PVC, PVDC, carbon black and microplastics that result from the breakdown of plastics poses a threat to human health throughout their life cycle, from production to disposal.

In recent years, the state has moved to eliminate PFAS from multiple product categories including clothing, textiles, paper based food packaging, firefighting, foam, and children's products because of the health concerns associated with these toxic forever chemicals. Republic services has long supported such efforts to keep pfas out of the solid waste stream, and we do so again in supporting AB 2761. AB 2761 phases out a subset of materials that are most toxic or pose the greatest challenges to recycle.

Let's keep this toxic material out of the waste stream. We respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2761. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2761?

Good morning, Mister chair, members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Solid Waste Association of North America, Legislative Task Force, California chapters both in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello Krystal Raynes from California against waste as co sponsor of this bill, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Emely Garcia with NRDC as co sponsor of this bill as well in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support.

Thank you.

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Rethink Waste and support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone here in opposition? AB 2761.

Good morning, chair, members. Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. I want to thank the author for his continued engagement with the opposition, but we still have significant concerns with the bill. The examples highlighted by the author are all rigid packaging examples, or fiber based. This bill again focuses on just plastic. So we want to talk about the actual packaging that is implicated under some of these bans.

First and foremost, we do talk about SB 54, and it's not in a vacuum. SB 54 was also passed with numerous other bills, including SB 343, which basically makes all packaging that has any PFAS or heavy metals in it non recyclable. You couple that with an SB 54 that has recycling mandates. If you can't label it recyclable, it is a de facto ban on the packaging. These things were contemplated by Senator Allen and his flagship EPR bills.

So this is not the first time these have been discussed. That was a four year bill thousands of hours in the making. So we do bring it up because it's important to remind the legislature what that bill and those bills do. We also, Cal Chamber worked on AB 1200 with assembly member Phil Ting in 2021, which bans all PFAS and food packaging, both plastic and fiber based. It's not just a fiber based bill. It's plastic and all other materials that use PFAS. It is true.

Calrecycle is undergoing rulemaking on SB 54 and SB 343 as we currently speak. Specifically the issue we have around PVDC we are not aware of any jurisdiction in the world that has banned PVDC for meat or medical devices. The proponents talk about the health impacts of PVDC and PVC, and yet all medical products and medical packaging are exempt. So our most vulnerable, that's all carved out. But for all other sectors, we should assume that that's the most dangerous.

There's inconsistencies in the bill that we would like to address. Specifically. If meat packaging is not exempt, the impacts to climate change and on our food source will be staggering. There is no alternative to PVDC packaging for meat that provides the same moisture, gas and odor barriers. That's why when South Korea banned it in 2019, they have an exemption every year after that for meat and medical packaging. Same in New Zealand, same in Taiwan. Time is up. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dennis Albion. On behalf of Consumer Brands Association, I do think also to continue on SB 54, there's actually a section in there that addresses these issues in these hard to recycle categories, and there's a process they go through, and if they cannot meet that process, they will essentially be banned. They will not be used in California.

So that's a whole process that includes infrastructure and a requirement on the manufacturers, whether it's food, whether it's a consumer product, whatever, that has to bring that back in as extended producer responsibility. So to say it's a recycling bill is not an accurate statement. It's actually a whole encompassing infrastructure bill with EPR, as well as will eliminate certain types of packaging that cannot be recycled and meet the tough mandates. As I think there's a area that wasn't addressed by Adam earlier

and so I'll focus on that. They've done extensive reviews on this and there was the entities, environmental entities, that have done collections and seen where this remains, where these products like PVDC and PVC are in the waste stream. And after they've done this in May 2022, they did a full study and found out that .12 percent of the waste stream is PVC or PVDC. So we're talking about very minimal amounts within the waste stream, and we're talking about things like packaging for medical devices.

We're talking about tamper resistant and safety packaging. We're talking about very limited uses that are very specific and necessary because of the principles that Adam discussed about the plastic itself. So this is not a litter issue. It's not a it's an issue of finding the right material for the right uses, and PVC and PVDC are essential in several of those uses. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2761?

Thank you, chair and members, Lauren Aguilar here on behalf of the Flexible Packaging Association and the American Institute for packaging and the environment, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carol Patterson with the Food Service Packaging Institute, also in opposition.