Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. This hearing is called to order. And before we begin, I'd like to cover a few logistics. I know that we don't have any authors, but I want to get through a few logistics.

So as we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as as much from the public, within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. For all those who will be providing comments today, we ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent.

And if you support or oppose the Bill considered. Any Member of the public may also submit written comments to our Committee through email. Emails may be sent to the address found on the Committee website, which is agri.committeeassembly.ca.gov Today we have three bills on the file. We will hear Bill Bill presentations in file order.

And we do have an author. So what we will do, we'll immediately move on. To begin with Senator Rubio. zero, and we have a quorum, so we're going to establish a quorum. So Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Great. So we have a quorum. So now we do have Senator Rubio here, if you want to proceed with file item number one, which is Senate Bill 18. Senator Rubio, please proceed with your bill when you are ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 18, referred to as the Food Affordability Act. This important bill will help California families struggling with the cost of groceries by ensuring that the Californians living in food deserts communities have access to affordable, healthy food options. Every Californian deserves access to nutritious food.

But in too many communities, you don't see them. You see liquor stores, you see fast food places. And that is really unacceptable for our communities. Residents of food deserts must travel long distances often to find grocery stores with healthy food options.

Or else they must resign themselves to relying on these closer stores, as I mentioned, less healthy, and their fast food, liquor stores. That's not what we want our children eating. Once again, SB 18 will address this problem by increasing access to affordable, fresh and nutritious food for families with needs.

This bill will Establish the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program under the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The Department will be authorized to award grants to grocery stores operators to support opening new grocery stores or improving existing grocery stores in food desert communities.

As an educator, I can attest that what our students eat does do oftentimes affect the way they behave and how they perform. And it impacts a child's ability to learn, to grow and to succeed, creating a cycle of disadvantage and students not being able to perform at their full potential.

And California has the opportunity today to lead by creating meaningful change and ensuring families in food deserts have access to healthy food as they deserve. And equally important, and sometimes overlooked in the discussion, is bringing opportunities to communities such as job creation and economic vitality.

Especially in these economic times where our communities need a little bit of boost in that area. This is I think a win win for everyone. We get to feed our children healthier options. We get to create jobs.

We get to improve the surrounding of a community and make sure that we support our local governments by bringing economic opportunities. I wanted to highlight that this bill was supported by health organizations and local governments and that is why it passed in the Senate with bipartisan support. 3820 no no votes.

And with me I have someone that will speak on behalf of this bill, Taylor Triffle on behalf of the California Grocers Association. If I may turn it over to.

Great. So we will now hear from those testifying in support. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members. Taylor Triffo on behalf of the California Grocers Association as sponsors of SB 18 and we offer our thanks to Senator Rubio. California grocers represent a wide variety of grocery stores here in California. Those change that you would understand and also independent ethnic markets and smaller markets as well.

Food insecurity now affects one in every five Californians. And I think as all of us have come to understand as buyers, food affordability is a major component of the insecurity.

But and for these reasons, CGA is really proud to work with advocates to protect supplemental benefits to expand state programs like fruit and vegetable EBT program to increase farm to school and continue donations to vulnerable communities. But insecurity is more than just about affordability. It's also about access.

As the Senator mentioned, despite California's agricultural abundance, which this Committee speaks about frequently, rural and urban neighborhoods simply have no access to stores. Those of you in a rural area I think understand that proximity is essential. But the urban issues are also a problem.

In LA, the most popuLated county in the state, over a quarter million households live in a food desert. And yet it's increasingly challenging for California grocers with margins of 1 to 2% to respond to this outstanding need.

SB 18 helps to fill this gap by supporting the siting and improvements of existing grocery stores and food deserts where access is limited or non existent.

It builds on our existing work to increase fresh food and corner stores through the Healthy Refrigeration program at CDFA and farmers markets and increasing benefit with another strategic solution, help new stores open and expand in underserved communities.

The bill mirrors successful efforts of other states like Pennsylvania and Illinois, and builds on California pilots like those led by Cal Endowment with Northgate Markets that have proven success. We recognize that stores need to be supported by their community and maintain. And I know there's questions about guardrails, which we are

why we're anticipating a very robust stakeholder process at the Department of Food and Agriculture to shape the future of the program. That department has a really strong legacy of holding equity as a core tenant of all of their grant programs, and I'm happy to go into more detail on that later.

Beyond providing access, we also believe SB 18 would help drive economic development. Grocery stores are often the anchor stores in shopping centers, encouraging consistent consumer traffic and attracting new businesses. And importantly, as our state budget suffers, the bill places California in a position to compete for private and remaining federal dollars and deliver resources for our communities. For these reasons, we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. We will now hear if there's anyone else. You only have one witness. Okay, perfect. We will now hear from those testifying in opposition. If you can please proceed. Again, if you can, please state your name in the organization you're here representing. You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Soria and Members of the Committee. My name is Izer Pemntuan and I'm here on behalf of Alameda County Community Food Bank and the California Food and Farming Network to respectfully express our position on SB 18 of opposed unless amended. Let me stress this.

We are immensely grateful for Senator Rubio's record as an anti hunger fighter, including this year championing medically supportive food and nutrition. But we are concerned about this bill's potential unintended consequences. Hunger is still an emergency. Our food bank distributes nearly 1 million meals per week.

We source over 80% of our purchased produce from BIPOC farmers, which has increased our ability to provide culturally relevant foods and supports the communities most at risk of experiencing food insecurity. This is the lens by which we evaluate SB 18 as written today in summary. We have three concerns.

First, food insecurity is about much more than just proximity to a store. Building a grocery store doesn't address the root causes of hunger like low wages and high food costs. Second, the bill lacks community input and accountability without which taxpayer dollars could be wasted and communities left worse off. Third, SB 18 could actually deepen food insecurity.

Large grocery store chains already receive subsidies and log record profits, yet still close and consolidate stores. Investing in big box stores sideline small farmers, local grocers and cooperatives. But we have a blueprint for making SB 18 better rather than investment in the status quo.

We are urging for amendments that prioritize community and tribal led retail and BIPOC owned businesses, require robust community input and stakeholder engagement and ensure long term commitments from grantees and to stay in the community. Our objections lie not with the intent of this bill, but with the mechanisms for pursuing it.

I urge you to support stronger community centered amendments before moving this bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have another.

Madam Chair and members of the committee. [Hupa]. I'm really glad to see everyone here today. I'm a member of the Hupa tribe, but I'm also the Executive Director of the Native American Environmental Protection Coalition which has 30 members strong. We are 30 tribes belong to our organization.

I have had the great opportunity to travel to 98 of the reservations in California. In traveling to these reservations, I pass community like Los Banos. I go to Lone Pine. I had to write them down. Alturas, Bridgeport. These are all rural communities that are not necessarily tribal communities, but they face similar problems.

This is a complex issue that requires a complex solution, but it requires more than that. The solution of active engagement of community stakeholders. I'm going to give you the story of Hupa as an example.

As a rural community, historically we always had two grocery stores, two small privately owned local community members who own those grocery stores in our community. Also 12 miles away in Willow Creek was also two grocery stores. Guess what big chain grocery store came in and guess what happened to the local community grocery stores? They were closed down.

Closed down because they were. They couldn't compete at the same level. As a result, the community was left with one grocery store. Chain operated. There was never a tribal manager. Yes, did our tribal Members become employed? Yes. Mainly janitors and cashiers, but never at the management level.

And when that store was shut down by the county, I might add, it decided to leave completely. And it left basically our community overnight. There was nothing left. So the tribe owning a gas station, we had to work a fix, right?

Well, we tried to solicit grocery store chain after grocery store chain after grocery store chain to come in and be a part of our community. But guess what? They weren't interested in becoming a part of our community because the bottom line wasn't big enough for them.

So this thrust the tribe into a position of having to develop our own grocery store. And we did it first by really examining what were our needs. What really were our needs. Our population lives below the 200% poverty level. So we know that our community members are suffering. Not just tribal but non tribal as well.

We built a grocery store that answered the needs of the community. We have local, local farmers, both tribal and non tribal who sell items to the store. We have a diabetic section, a whole row of foods for people who have diabetes and are battling that.

We also ensure that our grocery store does not gouge the prices of essential items like bread, milk, cheese, hamburger. These are the kinds of ways in which you fix this issue.

So lastly, I just want to implore upon you that this is an issue that can't be fixed in a with a single approach by big store grocery chains coming into a community.

Thank you. At this time we will open it up for public comment. Do we have members of the audience that would like to register their support or opposition for this bill? Please come forward. State your name, the organization and whether you support or oppose.

Madam Chair, members, Kobe Pozadi on behalf of the City of Merced, we're in strong support. Thank you.

Hello Chair and Committee members, Beth Spitler on behalf of Farms to People, FoodShed Cooperative, Yolo Food Hub Network, Agricultural Institute of Marin, and Community alliance with Family Farmers in opposition unless a minute in alignment with the testimony.

[Unintelligible] on behalf of Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network in opposition. Our position aligns with the concerns and amendments raised by the people who testified in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kameron Mims-Jones in speaking in opposition unless amended on behalf of Nourish California, Asian Pacific Islander Forward Movement, Food Access LA, the Food and Agriculture Action Coalition Towards Sovereignty. Thank you.

Afternoon committee members, Rhiannon Morales on behalf of UFCW Western States Council respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any members of the committee that have questions or comments at this time?

Were there amendments on this bill? Did you already take amendments there?

No, there were no amendments taken.

Yeah, I just have a couple of questions and my concerns. I voted for a similar bill like this before and it was brought up to me just as I walked in here today. I did vote for them in the past, but we didn't have any opposition on it. Now we have some opposition.

Every community up and down the state is different. And I want to figure out how we address food insecurity. I look at my little town, I have one grocery store and they're struggling. So it's only a matter of time that we don't know what's going to happen.

But we're trying to figure out how do you get more locally grown or nice grocery stores in your district? And it always comes back to population. If you can't meet the population, it's not going to happen. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

We know that the federal program exists and already offers support for the issue. Why can't grocers apply directly for these funds without a new state program?

With the chair's permission.

Yeah, go ahead, proceed.

So under the existing federal standards, grocers could apply for those dollars. What we're hoping is that we'd be able to catalyze additional NGO dollars in order to provide additional incentive, especially servicing some of those smaller grocers that would be interested in going into those areas that haven't previously been served.

So I think we find an opportunity for some synergy with our nonprofit partners in order to do that. And that's how the Cal Endowment program was able to open Northgate Market down in West Los Angeles was all through nonprofit dollars.

Larger area by far. But what are we going to do if the Federal Government doesn't provide the funding that we're hoping for. I mean, that's what makes me nervous because do I want this to succeed? Absolutely. But I am really concerned about where are we going to land on this.

Member. That's a great question. So as of right now, the fair funding, at least at the federal level, is still available. It's not been a part of the DOGE cutbacks. They actually just released about $16 million in the first round. They have a second round that's going to be released in October of next year.

And then there's additional technical assistance components and other things. So our hope with this bill is to create an infrastructure that's in place that allows California to be competitive for those dollars. So we're not seeing one off grocery stores make individual project specific decisions, but that we have a coordinated effort through the Department of Food and Agriculture to make those choices.

If I was assured that the grocers would follow through, I'd feel better about it because I worry about my small guy.

Absolutely.

And I think we all have to agree is that, you know, unfortunately, and I hate to say this because I'm on camera, you know, I can go into my grocery store right now and it's struggling so much is that they're not being able to rotate food around.

It's just your last chance to where you're going to go and it's 12 miles away to the nearest grocery store. So yeah, I have some concerns about this the way it is right now. But I was hoping there's going to be some changes to the bill. So thank you.

Assemblymember Conley.

Thank you Chair. Just wanted to kind of express some similar sentiments starting with appreciate the intent of the bill and the need to address issues in this area. But I was also struck by some of the opposition testimony. So just a couple follow up questions kind of along those lines.

How, how will this program include community feedback to ensure buy in for opening a new grocery store. I.e. possible provisions that would give communities the opportunity to provide feedback on what type of grocery store or provider they want in their community, recognizing that not every community is the same as was noted.

Well, first of all, I just really want to take a moment to acknowledge what all of you set up here because I think ultimately our goal is the same. As I already noted, I worked really, really hard to ensure that we feed our low income communities.

As someone that gave out almost 2,000 food boxes last year for Thanksgiving, we know that the need is great. And so I always appreciate my partners at the food banks who help out. It is something that I think all of us want to move towards making sure that we tackle the food and security issue.

I know that this bill is meant to prioritize tribal communities as well as those at net ethnic smaller communities that have these little smaller groceries.

I'm not opposed to having a conversation of how we can maybe help these smaller grocery stores partner in terms of maybe selling some other products to, you know, to these larger coming in markets so they don't disappear. But I have to share with you, this bill has been around since last year. As mentioned, it passed almost unanimously.

It has already. And to my UFCW friends who I just heard an opposition, this is the first time I hear them right here on the microphone, which is really disappointing because I've had a 20 year relationship with them. 20 years as a local Council Member, always helping them bring in jobs to my community.

And this is not how we negotiate. So I have to say that have we had the opportunity to sit down and talk about it, we probably would have gotten to a place where they wouldn't be here opposing the bill. But I'm open to a conversation, as I always have. These are important issues to me as well.

Low income community, predominantly Latino. And as a teacher, I can tell you one of the things that I did that I could only do is we have kids that go home by themselves.

And as a teacher, I remember literally teaching a cooking class where we could just create healthy options with three ingredients at home because they would go home to an empty home. And what do we do?

I'm very mindful of what I did for 20 years as a classroom teacher, making sure that we can pick items where the kids could go home and literally make their own food with three ingredients that were healthy.

So this is a mission for me that's been ongoing, not just the bill that came in today, but it's something that I think we can work towards without opposing each other.

Because I do believe that if we sit down and have these conversations, we haven't had opposition until, like I said, till recently, which is really disappointing because I want to collaborate, I want to talk about these issues. I want to make sure that we have that community feedback in a way that makes everyone happy.

So we'll continue the conversation. As I mentioned today, I just heard my friends from UFCW oppose today and this is the first time I've heard of it. I'm willing to sit down with each and every one of you.

I definitely don't want to be part of making sure that we disappear the last two little grocery stores in our community. I want to partner, I want to make sure that we bring you to the table. I want to make sure that we put some safeguards in place.

So we are perhaps, like I said, partnering to ensure that we buy their products, especially locally grown groceries. So anything that I can do, please be assured that I will try to come to the table. If anyone's open for a conversation, I'm still open.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And just a quick follow up and thank you for mentioning local farmers markets. We know a valuable source of affordability, healthy food. So I guess the question is,

Is, there could there be some planning to tie this new grant program to other strategies to reduce food insecurity like CalFresh and market match, which tie into local markets and stocking shelves from local farmers and ranchers.

Like I said, everything's possible. Absolutely. And I also want to note that not every community is the same. So I get that. I've been to Winters and have stopped at your little supermarket on the you know on the road. And so we'll, we'll definitely figure something out. I'll turn it over to my guest, see if there's anything you want to add to that.

Absolutely. So I think that's a wonderful question. I will say I think in CDFA's historic programs they've added additional points. Many of you have gone through RFPs and seen how extensive they are. They've got scoring rubrics.

They through a robust stakeholder process in the development of their RFP], put additional standards on the Healthy Refrigerations Unit program, encourages and gives extra points to corner stores that source from local farmers. We would imagine the same kind of language would be come through along with community engagement. Do we have declarations for municipalities?

Do we have tribal support? Have we done listening sessions? Each city and each grocery project is unique. That may not be necessary for a market feasibility study but absolutely necessary as a part of signing a grocery store.

So I think there's an entire process over at CDFA. I understand it's not as transparent as in the bill, but there's a long history there of that kind of equity and success that we'd hope to build on.

Any other questions Assemblymember? we have, I know that we have Assemblywoman Ramsom and then we'll go to Assemblywoman Irwin.

Okay, thank you. So I want to thank the author as well as the opposition for your presentations today. This bill is a, a lot of interest to me in my district. I live in a district that has really high rate of, of poverty.

Folks that don't have access to grocery stores who literally I just visited a low income housing complex where they get their groceries instacarted because there is no local grocery store option.

And so my question in regards to basically what the opposition has presented is have you thought about the fact that major grocery stores, if they wanted to be in these areas we would not have food deserts. A lot of them have already abandoned low income communities.

And so I'm wondering if we're looking at this and also looking at how this works with the federal program, the HFFI program that has some of the concerns that you already, that you're concerned about already drafted in the way I'm looking at this bill, these things would work together.

And so I'm wondering if you've looked at how we would be able to be able to answer the questions, the concerns for the food insecurities that we're facing when these major grocery stores, they are about making their dollars and they can't make their dollars. They're not going to go there. That's how they operate.

So I'm not really concerned about them coming in and buying out these grocery stores where they never wanted to be anyway. Because in my community these are low income areas.

So is there a way to work with you or work with the author to ensure that if we're looking at if HFFI, which is the Health Food Financing Initiative, it already addresses some of the concerns that you have in regards to prioritizing the things that you are concerned about.

And it sounds like you guys also have concerned about making sure that people have access to food, a food bank. I mean we shouldn't have people having to line up in cars and guess what they're going to eat for dinner based on what was available from a food bank. And that's what's happening in my community.

So I really want to be able to see this bll be successful because we need more. And so I do understand because I have a huge tribal community network in my community and we need more access to food and we need to be on the same page in regards to that. So I am supporting this bill.

But I want to see that we can answer your concerns. And I really would love to hear from UFCW what their concerns could possibly be about putting a grocery store in a community where people don't have access to food. We have colleagues who have people that are traveling 100 miles to get groceries.

And so we want to make sure there's access. And so can the author, can you address whether this particular program, how it intersects with the HFFI program, the federal program, will there be an opportunity to ensure that we are prioritizing whether it's tribal communities, whether it is the small nonprofit grocers.

Can you please, how do you intend this for this to work together? Because it looks like if I'm looking at the background of this, that these folks who are setting up the grocery stores will probably qualify for both programs. But can you address that for me?

Yes, happy to. With the truth, if the FAIR program through HFFI were to be the fund source for this, California would be beholden to meeting those standards that are already in the HFFI RFP. That includes a BIPOC standard, that includes a tribal component, that includes priorities for small farms or I'm sorry, for small grocery stores.

And so by extension those regulations, in order for California to be competitive for that, they would have to be including that in that. In their, in their program, in their RFP.

If there was a standalone program at CDFA, we're assuming that several of those components would be incorporated with specific detail as to what the stakeholders and communities would like to see through the request for proposals process. So they would put out an RFP and include all of those conditions.

Many of the farm to school programs, many of the grant programs that CDFA has had, don't have those individual line items with necessary prioritizations, additional points for X, Y and Z. That's a part of the robust stakeholder process.

So we would imagine, though, some of those same components at a specific degree of level of detail would be incorporated through that process. That is very nuanced in trying to fit that into a bill. But if it were to be federal dollars, California would hold them to meet those standards.

So any federal dollars already have that requirement. And are you opposed to, you know, a prioritization process where we can if the opportunity presents itself? Because we don't, we don't have a guarantee that there's going to be the huge influx of people that can do that.

But are you opposed to when there's an opportunity, looking at the opportunity to provide the tribal or BIPOC points for the opportunity to create local grocery store site.

Opportunities. On behalf of CGA, we would not be opposed to having that to be a part of the rubric that's there at CDFA. We'd also want details of what community engagement looks like. What does a commitment to extend on that property look like?

So we'd want to have a lot of detail that would support, I think, the tenants of what the opposition is asking for. We just believe those guardrails belong in a regulatory process rather than in explicitly stated in statute. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Next, assembly woman Irwin. Then we have assembly woman Hadwick and assembly member Gonzalez.

Hi. I was wondering if you could tell us how many grocery stores have closed in the last, like 10 years?

Yes, actually we can. So in California, the Economic Development Department, there's a, there's a law called the Warren Act which requires any grocer, actually any retailer that employs over 100 people. So those are.

Many of the grocery stores you're speaking about here, have a requirement to, to notify local government, economic development and other state agencies that they are planning on closing. They have to give a 60 day notice. They have to make sure that they're moving their employees to nearby stores and make sure that they're maintaining a level of employment.

If even if they're closing just for making retrofits on the facilities, they have to comply with the Warrant Act. Based on EDD data that we've seen in the last 10 years, 15 grocery stores that employ 100 or more people have closed in California. Two of those were for interim closures to do updates.

To give this context, those 15 stores represent .01% of all retail closures in the State of California in the last 10 years. So I understand, I think CJ understands we never want to see any grocery store close, regardless of size, but I think we do.

We are hoping through this bill to be able to address the outstanding problem of how do we entice grocery stores to go in places that they wouldn't otherwise go? How can we help them incentivize retrofit so they can offer more fresh local offerings than they would otherwise be offering and meet with the culture of their community?

So our hope is that the incentive program is filling the gap, though we think it's a, it's a narrow gap in the larger subset, but certainly smaller format grocery stores need an opportunity to thrive as well.

Okay, thank you. I was trying to find the data in my district because we have had a lot of grocery stores close. I have 11 counties, very rural. Our grocery stores are kind of the hub of the town and I'm the colleague that has to drive 100 miles to get to a Walmart.

So it's three hours to a Costco. I live in Modoc County, in Alturas. It's very, very rural. Our grocery store, we are very blessed. It's a larger chain, but they sell local products, they get stuff from local farmers, local honey, flour. We have a flour mill down the road.

The tribe there has been really focused on food sovereignty and is working with them, partnered with them that they would hopefully be able to sell that as soon as they get up and going. I am a proud co-author of this bill. I think this is a huge need in my district.

The north state is struggling and we have made it so hard to run a business in California that any incentive that we have, especially when it comes to access for just food. I was also a classroom teacher and I'm a farmer. Like, it's amazing how many of our kids are going home hungry.

And as gas prices rise, that kills my, that kills my families. They are having to, you know, a trip to town, we call it town. When we drive 100 miles to go to Walmart or wherever store we're going to, you know, that's, that's no longer a $20 tank of gas. That's 60, $70 for.

To add on to your grocery bill. We have to make it more accessible. I wish I had instant cart. I've never done instant cart. Might have to try that. We don't have any of that stuff where we live. We're insta, Insta. Sorry, Insta. We don't have that where I live.

So that's a convenience that rural living doesn't offer us. So I completely hear the worries of the opposition and I'm just going to hope that these grocery stores that are the hubs of their communities in my district, they're the ones sponsoring the little league teams.

They're the ones, you know, donating food for every boosters event or PTA meeting or, you know, they really are the hubs of these communities and I do feel like they have that community feedback because they are so involved and they need each other. It's a, you know, it's a, a win, win for everybody.

But I, I'm, I, I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward and I hope, I'm sure that you will continue the conversation with the opposition and I'm happy to support the bll today.

Gonzalez.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I, from Modoc to Imperial, uh, all the way down south, I represent a area that is that has 12 sovereign nations and it's about the size, a little bit bigger than New Hampshire. So it's pretty big. Permission to use a prop? That'd be nice. So the green is low income, low access.

So as you can see just by that, we have a lot of need, a lot of desert to cover. We also have a 17% unemployment rate. A place like a blythe has no grocery stores. And that's a huge challenge, right? Unemployment, no grocery store.

Like there's just a lot of things going on over there and 1 in 4 kids don't know where their next meal is coming from. So, that in itself is a challenge. I have a couple questions for the author or technical question here. How would these. Well, first of all, let me clarify. For clarity.

Can a small grocery store get this grant?

Absolutely.

Great. So not just big, this is small. This is anyone.

And I'd also like to clarify. The bill sets aside 10% of any money that the state receives in order to provide technical assistance. That's the technical assistance that a small grocer needs to figure out permitting, planning, who to contract with on site evaluations.

So for instance, the City of Blythe, they don't have anything. Someone says, hey, you know Ronnie, Robbie, Ricky and Mike, new edition.

Yeah.

Well, you want to put a grocery store together, is this something that they can have access to? Okay, great. How would the,as the bill is currently written, is CDFA able to decide who is awarded the grant money? I think you already answered that, so yes. So it's not just this blanket coverage. Okay, great.

As a principal co-author and someone who represents an area that's significantly in need, I'm thankful not only for the author and your consistent, compassionate look into communities like mine and communities like yours.

I'm thankful for the grocers who I've been in lots of conversations with about how do we just answer this need and how do we work together and. And hunger is not a partisan issue, right? It is. It is, absolutely. It's a human issue. And I'm thankful that that the author has brought this up.

And it's for those reasons and your leadership that I'll be supporting today.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I think assembly woman Ransom has another comment or question.

It was a quick question that I forgot to ask. So with this program, will there be requirements for if you are successful in the grant, how long your store must be open and in this community, otherwise you might have to refund some of the grant money.

Will that be because that was a concern that was raised to my office. Is that something that's a requirement?

Absolutely. It's not explicit in the bill as we've stated, but CDFA with their historical programs have required like four corner stores. They have or I'm sorry, for their farm to school program.

They have to have a letter of support from the school that that school is willing to commit to purchasing that product for a particular amount of time. For some of the ability to maintain that commitment. There's a lot more that goes into building a grocery store than just getting dollars from the state. It's an incredibly expensive process.

They need matching dollars. They've got consumer interest surveys, they've got company prospectus and market data that would likely be submitted to the department in order for them to make a decision on whether the department believes, based on a rubric that they would develop with community input. Is this the best bang for the buck?

Is this the most efficient use of the resources? This is not going to be the panacea to fixing hunger. I know that. It's not going to be the panacea to fix access. We know that.

But what we do know is that if there's an opportunity to catalyze on dollars that may be available in order to fill the get very wide gaps in a limited capacity that we can. That's what we would do.

And I think we have a lot of faith that the Department and through a stakeholder feedback process would be able to add those tendrils and those guard rails in to make sure that they're spending the money appropriately and judiciously.

Thank you, assembly or my Vice Chair, Alanis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Honestly, I think this bill's great. It just keeps irking me with the opposition. If you guys can answer this question, why did we wait so long?

I'm sorry?

Why did we wait so long to do the opposition letters that you guys did?

Sure. May I speak? Great. Thank you. My name's Beth Smoker. I'm the policy Director at the California Food and Farming Network. We actually shared a letter of concern with Senator Rubio back in April before it ever went to its first policy committee and met with two of your staff multiple time and shared our concerns.

Again, really trying not to take an oppositional position because we agree with the intent. Unfortunately, our requests were ignored.

And so we turned to a letter of opposition back right after it passed appropriations in the senate and have met with your office multiple times, including again this morning and got an email confirming that there was no willingness to take any of our amendments.

Okay, thank you. And also just Taylor, if you can answer, answer this. I know one of my colleagues here brought up a population as far as with stores that got me thinking on that also is there, does this bill help with that as well? If we can't get the population there, how would this bill help with that?

Yeah, I mean, I think we all, I'm going to speak plainly. I think we all know larger scale businesses make decisions based on a lot of different factors. What we need is the incentive for those that haven't already done the market research, that don't have the internal capacity to do that kind of work.

We need to help them do that work so that they can come in where others have chosen for whatever reason not to.

So our hope is that this program is a way to fill those gaps where there hasn't been an appetite in the past or at least allow those grocery stores that don't have the internal capacity to do that to actualize and realize their future with an opportunity in that particular community that isn't already served.

Thank you. I'm good Chair.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate all the comments and questions. I just have some final questions and you know, just a couple thoughts today. I think you've answered a lot of the questions that I had. I obviously represent also a very rural district.

Even though I like to say that we are the breadbasket of the state and the nation, we still have a lot of children that are food insecure, families that are living food insecure. And so this is an issue that is important to me and I'm supportive of the intent of thebill.

I do want to figure out how we do strike a balance in terms of trying to figure out for rural communities because I know that the biggest big stores are not going to come to like a Carruthers or a Biola. They're not going to come. And so how do we create the program?

And I know that the CDFA will essentially draft regulations, but where our small, maybe the smaller grocers that you're talking about that may want to take advantage of this incentive are giving a greater incentive or greater marks so that they're not competing against the big box stores that we know are not going to come to those communities.

So, I think that there is an opportunity and if the author is amenable, I think that we should talk about including some intent language to ensure that there is some equity in the equity that we know that obviously CDFA has supported in the variety of different programs that they do administer.

And so I think we're hearing from several of my colleagues and I know that's something that's important to me, you know, and obviously it seems like you guys are supportive of that. So, I don't see why there shouldn't be maybe some commitment from, you know, the sponsors and the author.

If you guys could help us in including some of that as we move this forward.

I again, I'd like to support it today, but I also would like to be able to ensure that we're figuring out how these smaller grocery stores really are not competing with the big box stores that are not going to come to the Carruthers and the Biolas in my community. But maybe we can incentivize these.

Rick and what were their names? Yeah, there we go. How we can incentivize them to maybe come to Biola and Carruthers and so forth. So wanted to give the author an opportunity, obviously, again, I support the intent and the goal that you are trying to, you know, to move forward in this piece of legislation.

I know obviously you represent a very different district from many of the districts that are up here. Ours are much more rural and we also want this to work for our community. So maybe if you could speak to your willingness to do that today.

Well, first of all, thank you for this engagement, but I want to make some clarifying statements. You know, number one, when I said that we heard about the opposition late, this bill has been going through the process last year we passed it.

The reason, you know, we weren't able to move forward, whether because it was lack of funding, but that was the entire year I didn't hear any of this opposition. And as I spoke today, to be clear, I wasn't speaking about you.

I said, my friends at UFCW, who I've had a 20 year relationship with, I will reiterate, this is the first time I've heard them opposing. As it pertains to the discussion we had with you, I think you used the word were ignored. And I think that's very strong because we had multiple meetings, multiple discussions with my staff.

It wasn't like we closed the door on you and we, we didn't want to take your ideas. There was dialogue, there was conversations. And you're right, you did come. I think it was in April. But again, it's not that we ignored your statements and completely dismissed you. That wasn't the case. There was conversations. You're right.

And the reality is what we're trying to do is I keep hearing this either or situation and I don't think it has to be either or, I think we have to find a way to make it all work.

Even though I do live in a different area than you, Chair, I have to tell you, I live in a food desert and I live in La, Los Angeles County. That is a problem because that's also a misconception, that because we live in these big cities, we have grocery stores in every corner.

No, as a Council Member, I remember it's one of the things that I always struggled with. We have a liquor store, probably three in one block, to the point that we put a moratorium on these liquor stores. So much so, that even a 711 came in and we had to even ban the square footage of how many.

How much alcohol they could sell to, to a little corner and mandated that the front be stocked with nothing but fruits and vegetables. Everything we could do to try and get our kids to grab that first fruit and vegetable versus all the junk food that they put in front.

So again, there's a misconception that we're LA County and that we're overflowing with markets. That's not the reality, not in my community. I do live in a food desert. And so I think we can find that opportunity to continue the dialogue.

So, I stated that first thing when I took the microphone, that I think we can find opportunities, but not doing anything at all is really not going to help the issue here. I do want to thank assembly member Ransom for first saying what she said.

We could continue to not have these opportunities and our communities will continue to go without supermarkets, and it's not okay. We do have a lot of children who are just not getting healthy meals. So, whatever we can do to continue the conversation. Absolutely.

We're not saying no, and we'll definitely figure out a way to strengthen the language to put some of the guardrails that you expressed. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, if you could, please, oh, we need a motion. We have a motion. And a second. Madam Clerk, if you could call the vote. On SB18

Rubio motion is due, passed to Appropriations Committee. Soria. Soria, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, not voting. Connolly.

Connally, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hadwick. Aye. Hadwick, aye. Irwin. Irwin, aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye.

Aye.

7-O. Your bill is out. Thank you. Senator, are you staying to present, file item 3, Senate Bill 312 by Senator Umberg? So if you, you can proceed when you're ready.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to present this I will be presenting on behalf of my colleague Senator Umberg, who could not be here today and I believe these are our witnesses.

You may proceed.

Oh, look at this. Well, thank you. I'll make this short. So today I'm presenting this bill on behalf of Senator Umberg. In 2017, California banned the sale of puppies at retail stores. However, it is apparent that as a result, other clandestine sales channels were created offering these puppies that were sold inappropriately.

Tens of thousands of puppies are currently being bred out of state, typically in so called puppy mills, and then sold oftentimes online and shipped to Californians, sometimes directly and other times through brokers. California State law has never required shippers of dogs to send health certificate forms to CDFA and this bill intends to remedy this.

In the interest of time, I will make sure to give my my witnesses the opportunity to speak on the bill. So if I may turn it over.

Great. We will now hear from those testifying and support. Please proceed. State your name and the organization you're representing.

Thank you Chair Soria and thank you Senator Rubio. Brittany Benesi, on behalf of the ASPCA. At its core, this bill is about protecting California consumers. People who are doing their best to make thoughtful, loving choices when bringing a new into their home. Unfortunately, many are currently being misled.

Every year thousands of puppies are imported into our state from out of state breeding operations, often through online ads that present them as local, reputable and healthy. But behind the polished websites, admittedly adorable pictures and carefully worded listings is often a very different story.

One of animals bred in large scale facilities with questionable conditions, inadequate vet care and no meaningful accountability. Consumers have no way to verify the origin or health status of the animals they're purchasing.

And when something goes wrong, when the puppy arrives sick or the breeder disappears, these families are left with emotional distress, unexpected vet bills and no recourse. SB 312 offers a solution. It requires that health certificates for dogs imported into our state are be submitted electronically to CDFA as well as the buyer and made accessible.

This gives consumers access to clear, factual information about where their pets are coming from and whether it was healthy at the time of shipment. This kind of transparency is already the norm in most other states. California, one that prides itself on our consumer protection and animal welfare, has unfortunately fallen behind the curve on this matter.

This bill ensures that buyers aren't left in the dark, that bad actors can't hide behind false identities, and that the state has the information needed to determine how many dogs are being imported in and from where. Thank you to the committee for your time, to Senator Rubio for your leadership, and to Senator Umberg. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, which provides animal care, public health support and law enforcement services for 13 cities in San Diego county. For years we've been told stories of puppies shipped in from out of state breeders via brokers who arrive with parvo, brucellosis, or falsified paperwork.

If investigators in California, whether, humane law enforcement, animal control, public health, or our consumer protection agencies want to trace the source, whether for a disease investigation, a consumer fraud case, or even tax evasion probes, the paper trail simply isn't there.

California is one of few states that don't keep a central record of the electronic health certificates that accompany these dogs, leaving us blind to both public health risks and criminal activity.

The Los Angeles Times recently spent years investigating and collecting tens of thousands of these certificates, one public records request at a time, from 16 different states, just to show how easily sick or misrepresented puppies slipped past California safeguards. Their expose documented how current requirements for health certificates to be furnished to local county health departments simply isn't working.

It was remarkable journalism, but it shouldn't take a newsroom the time it did to collect basic information that consumers expect our state to have in hand.

SB 312 closes this gap by requiring out of state shippers to e file an already federally required certificate with the California Department of Food and Ag and make them accessible to buyers and enforcement agencies. We have had multiple conversations with other organizations, the committee and leadership staff and recognize concerns about public facing personal information.

We want to commit here to working with the Appropriations Committee on amendments that will ensure consumer privacy while preserving data disease control and enforcement. We've appreciated unanimous bipartisan support thus far and respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Is there anyone in the or anyone in opposition that wants to come forward? If not, we'll open it for public comment. Public comment, if you could please. Members, state your name and register whether you oppose or support the bill.

Absolutely. Thank you. Chair Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. We're in strong support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association as well as Humane World for Animals. Thank you.

Great. Do we have any questions or comments from the Members? We have a couple questions. So, Assemblywoman Hadwick and then Assemblywoman Ransom.

I just want to thank you for this bill. Logistically, this happens a lot in my district. And we also border Nevada and Oregon, so we often have people getting victimized over state borders. So I just want to thank you for, for bringing it forward. Happy to support today.

I want to thank you for your testimony. It was very clarifying because I actually had some questions about the bill and I still have questions about kind of, can you kind of walk us through how it would work? Because my, we don't really regulate other states. Right. And the dogs are coming from other states.

So can you just for the record, just tell us how that works where we will be able to ensure that we are protecting our future pet owners from being taken advantage of?

Madam Chair?

You may pursue.

The San Diego Humane Society. This bill's actually part of a package of bills, and we're grateful to the Assembly for seeing fit to pass AB 506 and AB 519 that are addressing other aspects of this puppy mill pipeline into California. And SB 312 is really almost the enforcement piece.

That we need in that we are, again, we're one of few states there are these federal forms, they're called form 700s from USDA, that are health certificates that California already requires, actually for a lot of livestock species. So CDFA has a lot of experience receiving these forms, and they're done via e file.

So the veterinarian in another state is already required by federal law to transmit this to e file this. In fact, they have been coming into California and being deleted because we don't have a state law that requires CDFA to receive them.

So they are e filed by the veterinarian who is required to file them under federal law because they are supposed to actually accompany a shipment of puppies and be given to the buyer. What we don't have is what all these other states have is a copy of that given to our state. They used to be in paper.

They're now done electronically. And because this bill would actually clarify that California indeed wants to receive them and is demanding that they receive them from exporting from shippers coming into the state, then making that information available. We will now have access to information that folks have in other states.

Okay, I guess the part I should have asked is how do we compel the bad actors to register? Like, is there. Like, how do we. Is it is there like, the airport will know because the dogs are being shipped. Like, how do we compel the bad actors to ensure that they are actually getting the dogs to the vets to get the reports?

Brittany Benesty, on behalf of the ASPCA, I can clarify that the out of state bad actors that do not meet the standards that California consumers recognize are not necessarily perceived as bad actors within their states. They have very loose animal welfare laws, but they are compelled to provide an export certificate of veterinary inspection. And so by.

By following their own state laws, they will already be automatically sending out a health certificate with that animal. It's just a matter of right now in California, no one knows where they go.

Got it. Okay. Thank you so much for that clarification and I'm happy to support this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you all. Just wanted to say thank you to Senator Rubio for being here to present on behalf of Senator Umberg and to the witness assistant find in support. We look forward to seeing whatever language you guys said.

I know that there's been concerns on some consumer protection in terms of privacy and the information that is going to be out there in the public. So. But today we are. Are recommending to get it out of committee to move on to appropriation. So there is a motion and a second.

And so Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

Was there a motion?

Yeah, they. They moved. Yeah. Moved it early. Yeah.

On SB 312, Umberg, the motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll call].

Great. The vote has. Zero, zero no votes and eight votes. So it's out of committee, down to appropriations. Now we will move on to file item two. Thank you, Senator Becker, for your patience. It's Senate Bill 493. Senator Becker, you can proceed with your bill when you're ready.

Okay. Someone told me never to present after bill on puppy mills. Everyone's in a bad mood, but, oh, such is my lot. Thank you for having me here today. Here to present SB493, which would revise how compensation is determined for secretary managers of a district agricultural association. These secretary managers handle all critical operations behind the scenes.

They manage staff, facilities, budgets, and marketing. They work with government agencies at all levels. And importantly, they maintain fairgrounds for emergency use. We'll hear about that. But these programs have increasingly become just, you know, important parts of our emergency response system, and really even more so, kind of critical infrastructure serving as backbones of that emergency network.

During COVID, we all saw that many fairgrounds use as testing. All of them are managed by secretary managers who are on call for emergencies 24/7. Yet current law prevents secretary managers from receiving competitive salaries and benefits that really commensurate commensurate with the work they perform.

With that, I think I'll turn over to witness so we could hear a little bit more directly. But in brief, this bill transfers authority to fix the compensation to the secretary of food and agriculture who's going to do a number of things outlined here to really make this equitable and let us recruit great people.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the committee. I am Sarah Pelley, and I am proudly serve as the CEO at the Yolo County Fairgrounds in Woodland, and today I'm also speaking on behalf of the California Emergency Response Resiliency Venues and Fairgrounds.

I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 493, which brings long due reform to how we support leadership with the California District Association. In California, there are 52 DAAs, which are state entities. We are required to respond in times of emergency and are key partners in community resilience.

Our fairgrounds service, fire camps, heating and cooling centers, shelters for communities displaced by climate change, and staging areas for federal and state disasters.

In fact, across our network, fairgrounds were activated for emergency response over 43 times, totaling 352 days just this last year year contributing to 17,885 total days open for emergency and community use on top of producing 364 days worth of annual fairs.

Statewide fairgrounds operate year-round round hosting events that serve the community from cradle to grave, Quinceañeras, baby showers, baptisms, weddings. Most of you in the rural communities, the fairgrounds is the place to have their events. Dog shows, home shows, conferences of the course, our livestock shows.

Yet DAAS received less than 5% of their budget from the state in support. There's no special funds dedicated us as well, so we are locally self-sustaining funding our facilities, programs, and salaries through innovation and community partnerships. So these salaries are not funded by the General Fund; they're funded by all local dollars generated locally.

SB493 addresses the role of the secretary manager, an exempt position considered an officer of the state under the Constitution. So our day-to-day name is the CEO, but under CalHR, our title is Secretary Manager.

Despite the responsibility and the critical public service we provide, the position has never undergone a formal salary view since it was created.

SB493 fixes that by directing CDFA to conduct a salary survey establishing a fair compensation range with updates every five years, and that salaries get that salary survey is funded locally and not utilized by CDFA, doesn't have to pay for it. It's also important correction by removing CalHR from the salary approval process.

Prior to 2015, CalHR was not involved. Salary actions were reviewed and approved by the governor-appointed boards who are the best position to evaluate the performance and the needs. CalHR's first concern has been state pension liability and not the achievements of the individual.

We've had numerous salary recommendations approved by the board, approved by the secretary, go up to CalHR and be denied. At my fair, the 40th DAA, I've been there for about 18 months, and we've already been utilized by the Hurricane Helene twice by PG&E.

And just last night at 9 p.m. I received a call to be on hold for the fire over in Yolo County. Luckily, 10 p.m. the evacuation orders were called off, so we did not need to open up in the middle of the night to house about 75 individuals. Today, secretary managers were not just organizers.

They're emergency operation directors, grant writers, construction managers, marketers, event planners, community ambassadors. Yet turnover is escalating because of the salary. Within the next two years, we'll have about 10 CEOs transitioning and retiring out. Finally, SB493 standardizes the title from Fair Manager to Secretary Manager.

Again, that's just clarifying the code, because in code it switches from Fair Manager to Secretary Manager. But by CalHR standards, our title is Secretary Manager. And it's important to remember that California's network of fairgrounds contribute over three billion dollars in economic activity statewide each year.

And more fairgrounds are activated each year in response to community resilience and emergency response. Our secretary managers are critical to both economic vitality and public safety. It is about fairness, modernization, ensuring California fairgrounds remain resilient community pillars and critical emergency assets. I respectfully urge yours.

Great. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition? We'll move on to public comment. Those that are here, if you could please state your name, organization. Whether you support or oppose the bill.

Good afternoon again, Madam Chair and members. Taylor Trifo on behalf of Western Fairs Alliance, Western Fairs Association and California Fairs Alliance in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. Gilbert Lara here, on behalf of myself, longtime fairground patron, please support the bill. Thanks.

Now we'll bring it back to the committee. Any members have questions or comments? There's already a motion and a second. Okay, we'll go with Assemblywoman Hadwick, then Ransom and then Curry.

I just, I, this bill, this bill makes me nervous. I am supporting it, but I, I want to go on record that I have concerns taking away that local control. And I just. I think that I, I'm worried about the process because I have, I have the most fairs that of any, any assembly member.

We have a really hard time even getting members to be like, appointed by the governor. And we have holes, huge holes. So I'm concerned about the process and like how quickly things will happen for our fair managers because it is a really big job and we can't have, we can't have holes in the leadership of those facilities.

As you said, mine are all used for emergencies. I came from the OES world and it, it's just, it's a, it's a really important part of our community. Can you talk about timeliness and that you guys have the capacity.

Can you reassure me that you have the capacity to do this, I guess, or that CDFA will have the capacity to do it?

I mean, we're certainly, it's certainly our goal is timeless. I saw you nodding your head. Did you want to make a quick comment?

Previous to where I'm at now, I used to work for the Department of Fairs and Expositions and so this actually streamlines and make things simpler. They will basically contract out for a salary survey that's funded by the fairgrounds. And then there's a process in HR that's convoluted. This does not help that.

But that would be something else to address. This will makes it simpler because CalHR would be removed and then it just goes to the secretary, which is the current status right now. The boards approve it and then it goes to the secretary and then it goes to CalHR.

So it removes one layer of the process to make it simpler. It's the HR process that we need to work on, but that's an internal CDFA issue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. So I appreciate definitely the spirit of this bill. In my district, we, and I know you guys get tired of hearing about what we do in our district, but in our district we have a very capable fair manager that used to like manage Coachella.

So like we do concerts, we do emergency management, we do community events, we do all of these things. And then there's this huge pay disparity. So I just want to clarify that moving to this new system, does that help create more equity with the pay?

Because now we're going to be using kind of like this different pace, like a pay scale. Well, this. Are we looking to solve this equity and like pay people livable wages?

Yeah, exactly. That's the main point of the bill. I mean, the streamlining other things, but yeah, that's the main point of the bill. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. So that. That is the reason. That was my understanding. I just wanted to get clarification on the record. And I think this is really important because a lot of these folks have pretty much been volunteering and very high level community needed roles. And so for that, those are the reasons I'm supporting. So thank you.

Absolutely. No, absolutely. Thank you for that again, and COVID we saw that very, very starkly. Yeah.

Thank you. I'm glad you're here. I know how hard our fairgrounds work and our staff. Those are minimal. Like I just said, they're volunteer. There's a lot going on in the fairgrounds. You may just think it's during Yolo County Fair or whatever, the 4-H Spring Fair, whatever the case might be. There's so much activity going on.

But I do feel that the pay is, needs to be fixed throughout the state because you might be a small fairgrounds, but you're still doing the same amount of work as some of the bigger ones. So I think this is a great bill. Thank you for bringing it forward.

Like to see the stability in my fairgrounds and thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. We have Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Maybe I misunderstood a statement that was made and just for clarity, in one of my counties, my fair board has exceeded their, their appointment. Right. Looking and we submitted to get them reappointed. So does this allow for the secretary slash fare manager to appoint? Is that what.

So this is only salary. So the board of directors are appointed by the governor in the appointments office. And so that would need to go through. This is just the salary piece, not the appointment piece. That's the appointments office. We wish we could help with that, but that's. That's the appointments office.

Great. Thank you. Just need some clarity.

Thank you. Thank you to all the members for your questions or comments. Senator Becker, would you like to close on your bill? There is a motion already just.

I appreciate all the comments about acknowledging how important this role is and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Perfect. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB493, Becker, motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Great. You have eight votes and you're out. Your bill's out. Thank you all for joining us. We are adjourning.