Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, where we will be considering 3 two year bills in advance of the Assembly's House of Origin deadline. Before we begin with today's agenda, I would like to remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure that 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 the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing 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 each of the three measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are... Good morning. We are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. With that, we will begin today's hearing. We're beginning it like I feel like we left off last year, which is me pleading with staff to go get your Member, bring them to Room 1100.

We have three bills, that is three authors, and none of them are here. So we will keep the hearing open for another seven minutes. I like round numbers. So until 9:40. 7's not round, but we get to 9:40. Fair, fair, fair. Depends on where the round is. I know. So we'll keep the hearing open for seven minutes.

Honestly, y'all, you got seven minutes for authors to get over here. I know one is presenting another committee. I don't think the other two have that excuse. But if they don't get here, we'll gavel down, and everyone who is opposed to the bills will be happy, and everyone who supports the bills will be really unhappy. So I am very confident that the authors' staff are watching. Please go get your boss and bring them to the hearing. Thanks so much.

And on the round number of 9:30... Is 9:35 a round number? Probably isn't really a round number. It's roundish. Hey, buddy. Yeah. Assembly Member Irwin, dive on in. The water is warm. So we're going to hear agenda item number two, AB 762 by Assembly Member Irwin. And we still need one more Member for a quorum.

So the same plea, maybe two more, still applies to folks' staff. Please go get your, get your boss if they serve on the committee and bring them to the committee. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Well, good morning, Chair and Members. Is it okay to get started? Okay. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments to align implementation dates and allow a sell through date. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee for its work on this Bill, and I would also like to ask the chair for permission to use props.

Granted.

All right. I'm pleased to present AB 762, which would ban the sale and distribution of disposable vapes in California. Unfortunately, these disposable devices are incredibly popular and have become an accessory for several age groups. You can see them in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and in our children's backpacks. They are often made to resemble mundane objects like pens.

But a new trend is emerging to include elaborate screens and buttons to play classic games like Pac Man or Tetris.

As distressing as it is to see these disposable devices in the hands of our children or thrown on the sidewalk, the scariest place to find one is the place the manufacturer designs them for, which is the trash can.

With designs that prevent the refilling of vape liquid and recharging of the lithium ion battery, these devices have an intended lifespan of about a week. You may be thinking, why is that so bad? Plenty of consumer items are meant to be thrown away. The answer is simple. Lithium ion batteries and vapes are highly flammable.

They cannot be removed, so they pose a costly and hazardous safety issues at every point in the waste stream.

Marketed as disposable and without a robust EPR program for these devices, they are thrown in the trash and sent to material recovery facilities and landfills, where they ignite and catch entire garbage trucks on fire, putting the facility operators at risk.

Local governments end up shouldering the cost of extinguishing and cleaning up the dangerous battery fires, putting our firefighters and first responders in danger. We must clear that by allowing these devices to be sold and thrown away.

We must be clear that by allowing these devices to be sold and thrown away, we are putting our first responders in danger. This is not a problem without a readily available solution on the market. There are reusable options that are refillable and rechargeable.

Despite the fact that disposable vapes contain a battery that is capable of 700 recharges, they are thrown away after one battery cycle because the manufacturer omitted a charging port. We do not throw away our phones or our laptops after one week of use, and we should not treat other lithium battery devices any differently.

AB 762 has very strong enforcement mechanisms to deter the sale of disposable devices before consumers have the chance to purchase them in the store.

While opposition points to the illegal online sales as the source of this problem, I would point out that the convenience store, sought by the disposable vape consumers, is not met by—the convenience sought by disposable vape customers is not met by an overseas manufacturer that makes—that takes—two weeks to deliver the package, but by the corner convenience store.

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about the illicit market and the argument that this Bill will expand it. When consumers have a clear preference for a substance, they will look to the illicit market for that product. This is the case with flavored vapes, which remain a problem in the illicit market.

With single versus rechargeable vapes, there is a clear and accessible substitute. We don't see consumers choosing out illicit dealers to obtain a disposable vape over walking into a retailer to get a refill for the rechargeable vape, making it unlikely to expand the illicit market.

A study in UK shows that prior to the disposable ban being enacted, consumers shifted to reusable models, reducing the use of disposables from 63% to 35%. This past summer, the UK banned disposable vapes. Since then, LBAR, one of the largest manufacturers, has put out data that 85% of consumers easily pivoted to reusable devices.

This Bill keeps these devices out of the trash can and out of the hands of our children. I'd like to close by mentioning that when Senator Newman and I passed our battery recycling bills, these devices were taken out at the end of the process because we could not find a good way to recycle them.

Doesn't matter what the contents of the device are, the batteries are catching our waste and recycling facilities on fire, leading to increased costs for ratepayers because of these dangerous products. With me to testify in support of the Bill are Joe Lamariana from We Think—Rethink Waste—and Doug Silvers from California Professional Firefighters.

Great. You have two minutes each.

And I just want to say I am going to pass these around just so everybody while we're listening—the, the green are, are just the reusable devices and the red are the non-reusable devices, the single use vapes. And if you look at these two, very similar.

And these are just for colleagues to look at not to use. Thank you.

Well if they want to use them, I guess.

Oh, yeah, actually, let's hold on one second. We're just going to establish a quorum while we've got it before members all run away. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a quorum. Please continue.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and fellow Committee Members. My name is Joe Lamariana. I am the Executive Director of Rethink Waste. The reason I'm here is to give you a little bit of a view from the front lines. We are a public owned agency that is 100% ratepayer-based. We own a solid waste facility in San Carlos, California.

We handle the 11 municipal jurisdictions between East Palo Alto and Burlingame. So, at our 16-acre solid waste facility, we have 400 solid waste workers. That's just a very small subset of probably the 25 to 30,000 solid waste workers in California. And I want to say, every one of them is at risk from these materials.

As we handle several thousand or over a thousand tons of material a day at our facility—unknown material—we have a lot of new electronics that are coming into the—inbound into the facility—and every one of them has—is a existential fire risk.

So, we are a proud, proud sponsor of AB 762, as we were for the recent battery bills that Assemblymember Irwin authored and championed on our members' behalf. So, what is the harm? What is the risk? So, we had a four alarm fire on September 7th, 2016. I was five weeks on the job. Bam. Four alarm fire.

100 firefighters came in response to that. Every one of them was at risk. I'm very happy to say no one was injured during that. One firefighter actually did have smoke inhalation but it could have been very, very dramatically different.

So, I've been on a campaign, it's been something of a personal campaign for me to move forward with anything that helps create a safer work environment for our colleagues and maintains the financial infrastructure that our ratepayers 100% finance. So, that's why we are here. When we had that fire, we were closed for four months.

So, several bad things happened. Probably 75 workers were furloughed for four months, four and a half months. We had $8.5 million worth of damage. Our fire insurance was canceled by our insurance company. We now have 17 insurance companies charging us 20x what we paid in 2016 because of this one fire, this one time.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yes. So, that's the background. So, what we'd like to do is call your attention to support this Bill. We are very concerned about the safety of our workers, the firefighters, and the teamsters every day here.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Doug Subers. I'm here to testify on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support of AB 762. Lithium-ion battery fires of all sizes have been an increasing challenge for our members.

That's part of the reason we supported the author's prior efforts on reducing the presence of lithium ion batteries in the waste stream. Single use devices that can or do cause fires in the waste stream are particularly dangerous.

As mentioned by the prior speaker, when there is a fire at a waste facility or transfer station, our members are exposed to kind of a toxic mix of everything that is in that facility.

Increasingly, challenges for our members are being experienced not only through inhalation of dangerous smoke but also through skin absorption of heavy metals and other challenges that are occurring, particularly when there's a heavy a large presence of lithium-ion batteries in the in the waste stream.

Several—a few years ago in 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer designated firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen. And with this in mind, we continue to support efforts that reduce fire risk and the likelihood of fires, particularly in the waste stream and related to lithium-ion batteries or the presence of them.

Because this measure would take a demonstrable step forward in reducing a source of lithium-ion batteries in the waste stream, we think this will improve firefighter and community safety when it comes to the potential for fire risk at those facilities. And for those reasons, we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any—anybody wants to add on as a me too in support of the Bill? Any add ons in support of the Bill? I'm a little rusty. It's been four months since I ran a hearing but I'm pretty sure that's right. Please go ahead.

It's not on.

Good morning. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in strong support. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of the California Products Stewardship Council, Stop Waste, and Swana. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Connor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, in support of the Bill. We have members at both the MRF facilities and cannabis workers. We'd really like to hear this pass.

Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara, in support.

Thank you.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair Berman, Members of the Committee. Michael Caprio with Republic Services, here in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the City of Alameda, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kelly McMillan, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Keely Morris, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Noam Elroy, on behalf of Clean Water Action, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, Cespeop Creek Dispensary, Santa Cruz County Tobacco Prevention Coalition, Surfrider Foundation Regen Monterey, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Marin Residents for Public Health Cannabis Policies, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Stewardship Action Council, Endangered Habitats League, Zero Waste Marin, Breathe California, and the San Diego Pediatricians for Clean Air, in support. Thank you.

You've been busy. Thank you.

Mandy Strella, on behalf of Equity and Wellness Institute, California Health Coalition Advocacy, Sustainable Works, Blue Ocean Warriors Waste Management, Parents Against Vaping, Napa Recycling, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Glendale Environment Coalition, American Sustainable Business Network, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority, Rents Committee on Legislation of California, and Northern California Recycling Association, in support.

Thank you.

Just one. Karen Lang, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Two primary witnesses in opposition. Come on up. You have two minutes each. We've got plenty of chairs at the dais.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, in respectful opposition. We represent 300 licensed cannabis operators representing about 50% of the state's population. We share the author's commitment to environmental stewardship, recycling, and consumer protection.

However, we do not believe this Bill addresses the lithium ion battery challenge in a meaningful, comprehensive way. Lithium ion batteries are ubiquitous across modern consumer products. Cannabis vaping devices represent only a fraction of products that contain them, and legal integrated cannabis vapes are an even smaller subset.

Eliminating this category from the legal supply chain does not materially reduce lithium ion waste or disposal risk at the statewide level. These devices also serve unique medical and accessibility functions for patients managing chronic pain, neurological conditions, or mobility impairments. Legal integrated vapes offer a safe, fast axing, and precise dosing mechanism.

Requiring users to manipulate removable cartridges and batteries introduces dexterity barriers. Labeling these devices as single use and non-reusable is also misleading. A half gram unit delivers 150 doses. A full gram can provide up to 300 doses and for many, that can be a product that lasts months if not longer.

Removing these products from the legal market also raises public health concerns. When legal and tested cannabis vaping products are restricted, consumers do shift towards readily available illicit products. We saw this during the evali outbreak in 2019.

Bottom line, this Bill eliminates a critical product category without offering real solutions to the hazardous waste issues associated with improper disposal of lithium ion batteries, nor does it enhance consumer education around safe disposable practices. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote today. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lt. Nate Gurgich and I'm with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office. I'm here to speak about the very real public safety and threat imposed by the illicit vapor market that has grown to unimaginable levels. Unregulated vape products, both cannabis and nicotine, are flooding California through illegal channels.

These products bypass state testing and often contain unknown dangerous substances, including excessive nicotine, toxic chemicals, and even controlled substances. There is no safety oversight, and our youth are especially at risk. This is not a victimless crime.

The illicit vape trade is increasingly tied to organized criminal networks that use it to fund narcotics trafficking, weapons smuggling, and other violent crimes. We've already seen these cases across the county of Sacramento. Law enforcement experts have continued to warn that counterfeit vape products, many coming from overseas, pose not just a health risk, but a national security concern.

California, now the top state for in the nation for cigarette smuggling, has become a prime target for this type of illegal trade. We, as an agency, have done no less than 150 operations into smoke shops and found hidden rooms where illegal products were being sold, especially to juveniles.

Illicit vapes are also aggressively marketed to minors, sold outside regulated channels by bypassing age verification entirely, making it easy for youth to access high nicotine and THC-laced products. We, as a county, have seen overdoses in no less than one to two juveniles in our region.

Banning illegal—or banning legal products—drives California to the, to the illicit market. It does nothing to remove these products from the marketplace. In short, the illicit vapor, vapor market is not just a regulatory issue, but it is a growing public safety concern.

Law enforcement needs strong tools, meaningful penalties, and resources to dismantle these networks. We, as an agency, have serious concerns about this Bill. Thank you for your time and commitment to the state of California.

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

Good morning. Dan Seaman on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California Business Roundtable in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jacob Britain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Morning. Jack Yanos. We have the California Fuels Convenience Alliance respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Butler Torrez on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shane Lavigne on behalf of Weed Maps and the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Meghan Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jazmine Advincula with Sacramento and California Asian Pacific Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shanta Paikian on behalf of the Cannabis Distribution Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tiffany Devitt on behalf of March and Ash Dispensaries in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Damian Martin on behalf of Catalyst Cannabis Co. in opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to colleagues. Any questions or comments from colleagues, Assembly Member Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I really appreciate the intent of the author for this Bill. I do have some questions regarding the dynamic with the illicit market and the folks that are regulated in our current market today. It's my understanding that about 90% of this market is from China and it's unregulated.

So I want to understand the dynamics in terms of your goal is to reduce the number of batteries in landfills, how does this type of regulation in terms of disposable have a direct correlation between fuel, legal disposable in terms of fuel, battery and circulation?

Say something. But I will just start with that first. We find it very hard to believe that this is going to increase the illicit market. Again, this is the product, that, this is the mechanism that delivers the product.

And if you saw the vapes that we passed around, they look exactly the same and it saves consumers money over the long run. So we do have an incredible concern about the illicit market. And that is why this Bill has two very strong enforcement mechanisms, license revocation and civil penalties.

And that's combined with the $38 million from the Jim Wood Bill to increase enforcement. We absolutely, and I've been saying this for years, have to increase enforcement to get rid of the illicit market. This is just a. This is a Bill that will reduce the amount of lithium ion batteries.

Of course it's not going to get rid of all of them, but just so you have an idea about the numbers? When we looked at UK data, consumers are throwing away 5 million disposable vapes every week, and they have a population of 69 million.

And again, the New England, the England study has shown that it's very easy for consumers to pivot to these reusable products. So I understand about the illicit market. I, you know, I voice that concern all the time, but I don't really see that this is going to be increasing the illicit market.

This is just making sure that, you know, allowing consumers a choice that allows them to save money over the long run.

Yeah, no, go ahead, please.

Thank you. I apologize. One more question, and it's actually a question directed to Amy and the opposition. You know, $38 million does sound like a lot of money, but with our projected $280 billion or $250 billion, it also may also seem like a drop in a bucket.

So what type of enforcement mechanisms have you seen, especially from some of the folks that you represent, in which I know has a stake as well as wholeheartedly wants to reduce the illicit market and have regulation on not only your side, but also clearly from the illicit market side? What type of enforcement have you seen?

Is there teeth? Who went? Or is it something that actually doesn't have teeth and is a drop in the bucket?

I appreciate the question, Assemblyman. I would just say that the Legislature has been very committed to providing additional resources for enforcement. However, we would argue that it's very fragmented at this point in time, and we are still really in this process of trying to establish a more unified enforcement framework.

I would also say that the lion's share of the enforcement dollars that have been dedicated to addressing illicit cannabis. I'm not talking about illicit tobacco here. I'm the cannabis lobbyist. Have really gone to addressing illicit grows. There has been, I would say, extreme lack of emphasis in addressing illicit retail.

As I've continued to emphasize before this Committee many times. We still have an illicit dispensary on K Street within walking distance from here, where you can go and buy an integrated cannabis vaporizer, and we'll continue to be able to buy an integrated cannabis vaporizer even if this Bill passes.

So I would definitely say there needs to be a more integrated framework as it relates to enforcement of illicit products and a greater emphasis on retail products. There is certainly not enough dedicated for that purpose. But I do appreciate the efforts that have been taken thus far by this Legislature. You are moving in the right direction.

Thanks. Assembly Member Hadwick.

Hi. I had some questions for both opposition and support. Do you think the flavor ban increased the illicit market?

I do think the flavor ban increased the illicit market. And we have, again, I do agree with a lot of what the opposition is saying. I would like that store on K Street to be closed also. I think this would make enforcement much easier because we would be banning all disposable vapes flavored and unflavored.

Right now it's very difficult for law enforcement to discern is this a flavored vape or is this not a flavored vape? This would just ban all, all, all disposable vapes. And again, the side benefit is that there are many, many less lithium batteries going into the waste stream.

What are the consequences for having elicit vape or consequence for the store selling illicit vapes?

It's a license revocation and there's like $500 penalties to. I don't remember the exact amount.

Do you guys remember on your side?

So from the Sheriff's Office side, we've done all of these operations and of the illicit vapes that we've actually seized and taken and so forth, it's about a $500 penalty and roughly a 30 day closure for modification, making sure the vapes actually get pulled from the shelves. But even some of those have re put them back out.

And as it was said earlier, it is very difficult to see what is flavored, what is not. You have to really almost test the product to make sure that it's not clear, but it's actually blueberry or it's not packaged a certain way to make it attractive for especially juveniles to actually get it.

Yeah. And we did confirm that it is 500. And you just made a good argument for us. It's very easy if all disposables are banned. So thank you.

So. Oh, Amy.

Yeah, thank you, Assemblywoman. Just to add to that, flavored is already banned. Just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. And they are rampant. They're very easy to acquire, very accessible on the penalty piece. We have very robust penalty provisions already in our MCRSA laws, our cannabis laws.

So violations against unlicensed operators can be 30,000 per day per violation. So we do have existing remedies in place that are frankly more stronger than what is presented in 762. And we still see a very rampant problem. I think from a illicit operator perspective, it's simply the cost of doing business.

Yeah. So I am very passionate about this. We've spoke about it a lot. I spent 12 years on our county coalition, our Tobacco Coalition fighting it for youth. And I was the TUPI Director. I was the person that taught the class when the kids got caught at school. There's nothing you can do to a kid at school.

There is no punishment. It's very hard when you have no consequences to control an illegal market. 90% of them are coming from China. They're not FDA controlled. So, you know, the 10% that are have that quality control, that have those protections for fires and for the users.

I absolutely support firefighters, so I usually don't testify against things that they believe in. I just don't think this Bill is the answer. We are not going to control. The 10% that are buying this legally don't care. They might recycle it, but 90% are not. They don't care where their battery ends up. They don't.

And this is not going to help that 500,000. There would be 500,000 of that 5 million that would be legal in that. So until we control the illicit market and get some consequences that are going to hold up and hold our kids, our youth is where I'm at. I don't care if adults do this, that's on them.

But our kids are addicted to this. My average age of kids that got caught was 10 years old. I was doing elementary school classes, which is unreal for vaping. This is ruining our youth. And until we have the consequences to back it, it's not going to change. So I'll respectfully be have a no vote today.

Thank you, Assembly Member Elhawary.

I want to build on some of what Assembly Member Hadwick mentioned just to ask a few questions. So the first one is recognizing that based on some of the illicit market and the packaging is just much, you know, whatever's coming from China is just clearly not approved, not helpful for our environment.

While the disposables that do currently exist that are approved aren't impacting as much because of some of what was talked about in terms of, you know, just being more thoughtful about packaging, ensuring that they're not messing up our, our landfills and creating fires and all that stuff.

But just based on some of what you all are saying on the opposition side, because I do see what the assemblymember is trying to address and it's important that we don't have these batteries in our landfills, that they don't, you know, make it worse, what do you see as kind of a more effective way of addressing the concern?

So thank you for the question. In terms of existing law that was enacted in 2022 that took effect in 2024, supported by this Committee, did require the legal cannabis industry to include information on the packaging and labeling related to proper disposal. It also has to appear on all of our website and materials.

So when you purchase a legal cannabis vaping device, whether it is integrated, so with that all in one or whether it is separated from the cartridge, we do have consumer information about proper disposal. We do inform them you are not to dispose of this. It needs to be treated as hazardous waste.

If you eliminate a portion of our retail vaping sales, you are further eroding some of that educational material that is provided. Now, I want to be very clear when looking at cannabis vapes right now, integrated vaporizers, and we just confirmed the data represents about 40% of overall cannabis vapes. So 40% of those would be eliminated.

You're eliminating consumer awareness and education. I will also say that, and I do believe more work needs to be done here. But there are very responsible actors in the legal cannabis space that do have take back programs. March and Ash, who testified previously, has a take back program.

I can think of other cannabis brands that are reacquiring these products in their stores. You're not going to see that in the illicit market. So again, I think consumer education is really important and the industry is committed to continuing to build upon that education. This Bill would take some of that away, please add.

Yeah, thank you, madam. Assemblymember. Again from the front lines, there's a couple thoughts that come very respectfully. We've been on the mission to eliminate all lithium ion batteries from the waste stream to create a responsible handling infrastructure.

We did so with the support of many of you right here with AB 2440 several years ago that's just coming online now and SB 1215. So 11 focused on loose batteries, one focused on embedded batteries. This product category got carved out of the embedded battery law that just came online January 1st.

So our facility, meanwhile, the house is burning down. Our facility averages about a fire a month since New Year's. So here we are on the 13th. Since New Year's we've had two fires. We had one last Thursday. Any one of these can get away from us.

So we're looking for a way to carve out in this case the exponentially trending upwards category of materials and hopefully toggle the users over to responsible reusable vapes. So we're not saying don't vape. We're not in a place to do that. That's not our call. We're looking at it from the Safety and cost application in this situation.

Okay, that's really helpful. Thank you to both sides. I think something to add that I learned in this process, the Assembly Members have been doing an amazing job of helping folks really understand what the goal is. What I learned is that the illicit market is huge.

It exists, and oftentimes the fires associated with the batteries are coming from the illicit products, not from the products that are approved.

And so I'm wondering, what do we say to that, given that if we're working on something that we know is really important, we know needs to be removed from the waste stream, but we're not tackling the illicit side of it. I just want to understand that better because I. I do support our environment.

Like, I want to see that we don't have more fires. But if the illicit market is what's ultimately causing the fires, then I'm not sure if this policy is necessarily getting to the. The crux of the matter.

May I? So one of the things that we run into when we do come across illicit product, which is very regular, is we don't have teeth. There is no enforcement action that is done. It is a citation. Whether it's a misdemeanor or infraction, it is a citation and we need teeth.

I don't know if any of you have ever met my boss, Sheriff Cooper. He likes having teeth and he needs those to enforce the laws that are literally getting bent. And it's just a cost of doing business.

And for a lot of the managers that run these, the vape shops, the smoke shops and so forth, it's just the cost of doing business. They may have to shut down for a couple of days, they may have to pay a small fee, but there's no teeth to it.

We need to have district attorneys support and county councils that are supportive of getting these people to shut down permanently to then get the product to show that it's going to pay, it's going to pinch your pocket.

You want to.

Well, I would just note that, like, over the last decade, CPF has worked on a variety of bills and issues about reducing types of products that are in the environment that create unique risks to our Members.

So prior to the legalization of cannabis, CPF did a lot of work around how certain, the illicit market for butane and honey oil. And we had several large fires where someone was trying to extract cannabis on, on the butane side.

And so we worked at the time to try to reduce the presence or the types of butane that were coming into people's homes or other places because there were some explosions.

Since the passage of the overall cannabis legalization, there has been a reduction in butane, but there was a fire in downtown LA that had significant butane in the facility that was collected illegally. And we worked on a Bill following that by Assemblywoman Carrillo to provide better tracking and information as it relates to large elements of butane.

So we have seen progress in trying to reduce the presence of products in the waste stream as to reduce and enhance the safety of our Members. So I think, you know, progress, even if it's incremental, could still be progress in the reduction of fires.

I mean, we heard that there's already been two at the prior witnesses facility this year.

I just I want to end. Thank you again for sharing that. I want to end with saying that, you know, while I support this Bill, I do want to be thoughtful about the cannabis industry and the impacts there and mitigate as much as possible.

As we think about, you know, this Bill, going through that process, it really is important to me that we aren't even more kind of harmful to an industry that's struggling.

Thank you, Assembly Member Elhawary. So I've got Vice Chair Johnson and then I've got Ahrens, Krell, Bauer-Kahan, Baines. Okay, that's where we are right now, please.

All right, thank you. Good morning. Thank you for both opposition and support. I'm interested, I'm in learning and having lots of conversation. I can't imagine that a consumer who's already buying illegal illicit products is really going to be concerned with responsible waste management.

I don't understand how banning legal products and regulated products through the FDA is helping us move the needle forward. With all the work that's been done, I'm really concerned that this is. We're getting too far away from how. Where we're trying to be and preventing the illegal disposal of illegal products. We. I heard the word responsible handling.

I don't know that we've. Well, I know we haven't addressed that, especially with 90% of the products being illegal. So either side, I'm looking for. For comments on how we're going to address that first. And then I do have two additional questions.

You know, again, this is. I think the Legislature has shown a real willingness to combat the illicit market. That is a huge issue. This is an incremental change that would have a negligible effect on consumers. We have seen in England when disposable vapes were banned, that they pivoted to reusable vapes.

And so if 90% of the market is illicit, I don't know if that's the accurate number or not. It could be the accurate number. Then we have to fight that with other tools. Again, this has two tools that strengthen enforcements, license revocation and civil penalties.

But we are trying to make incremental change in the legal market in a way that should not affect consumers. They have shown a real willingness in other countries to pivot to these products. And again, the ones that are being passed around show there's very little difference in the disposable versus the reusable product.

And this is, I shouldn't even say product. This is the mechanism we're not talking about whether it's cannabis or tobacco. This is just purely the mechanism that delivers it.

So people that are in the legal market that have made the decision that they want to make sure their product is safe, I don't see them switching to the illicit market when there is an easily substitutable product mechanism.

Yeah. My concern is that I don't understand how we're going to regulate what we can't ban. And I know the numbers, whether we can verify the 90% or 10%. But this Bill bans the 10% of regulated, tracked and FDA approved.

I'm not suggesting that those want to vape, but I think that if we're removing the cleanest version of what exists right now and banning it, we're left with the dirtiest version. And I think that that's a big concern. I also, you know, I'm a new Member. I was learning a lot.

But I know that this Bill was introduced last year. Has there been any good faith discussions in opposition or amendments to the Bill from the last time it was heard here?

The amendments? Well, we didn't have a hearing the last time. And I have gone through and talked to a lot of Members that didn't have enough time to look at all aspects of the Bill.

There was some concern from business owners that they would be able to go all the way through the stock that they currently had on hand. And we pushed out also the date for compliance.

Okay. And just so I'm clear, it might be a silly question, what exact agency is going to be responsible for enforcement?

Well, the AG's office or city and county attorneys.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you for answering my questions. I think, I know there's more comments that need or questions, but I think we cannot regulate what we cannot ban. And with the market being infiltrated and full of illicit products, I think I'm respectfully in opposition today. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Johnson, let me take this opportunity to welcome you as the at least temporary vice chair of the Committee. You are a significant improvement on your predecessor, and we appreciate you. So next up is Assembly Member Ahrens. Got a motion. Got a second.

Was that why I was calling on you, was to move the Bill? All right, that was. That's how we do it. Assembly Member Krell.

Sure. I think most of what I was going to say has been covered. I do want to thank the author for working through this Bill. I know it's a challenging issue, and I share the concerns that you're raising in the Bill.

I also want to thank Sacramento Sheriff for being here today and for your tireless work cracking down on the illicit market here in Assembly District 6. My concerns have been expressed by others. It's the illicit market.

It's whether this Bill worsens what we're already seeing, whether it exacerbates the problem of the 90% of products that are currently being sold through the illegal market and too often getting in the hands of children. So I will leave it at that. Thanks to both sides for all of your comments today.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Bauer Kahan.

Thank you to the author for her continued work in this space. Obviously, you know, I think, as was said by everybody, we all the ultimate goal here, which is ensuring that there are not. There's not pollution and landfill fires shared by everybody sitting there.

And so I think that it's always important to start with what we all agree on. So thank you for that, for that hard work. And again, you have not given up. And, you know, as we've been able to talk about, you know, I'll be supporting this Bill today.

I will say that I represent a very large senior community that relies on legal cannabis to deal with things like arthritis. For them, I think the cannabis piece is really important. I want them to also have access to the legal market. And as we all know here, that's a really important thing for California to protect.

And I think this really concerns me on the cannabis front. I also think there is a significant difference between the products and the cannabis and the tobacco. 200 puffs on a tobacco device, we're talking maybe days for some smokers, that isn't true on the cannabis market.

And so I just think there is a difference in how long these will last in how they're used. You know, we did a Bill a few years ago, Assemblymember Rivas, now Congresswoman Rivas, did around the disposal on the cannabis market. And so I really support this Bill as it relates to the tobacco piece.

I think it is the vast majority of these things and if we do that, we are taking a huge chunk out and we aren't affecting the legal cannabis market. So I will be supporting it today. But I'm really hopeful that as this Bill moves through the Legislature, that is the direction we will see it go.

Thank you. And Dr. Bains.

And I would just like. I just would like to respond to. I think it is a very good point that there is the amount of time that a disposable vape lasts when you're using tobacco in it or when you're using nicotine, I should say, versus when you're using cannabis.

That is a significant difference and we will will certainly look at that. I think the other thing is that a very significant portion of the legal market for cannabis is already in reusables. It's I think close to 80%.

There is a real concern with tobacco that or with nicotine, that that market is increasing very rapidly, that people are switching from cigarettes to disposables. And we really want to make sure that if they're switching that they go to renewables. So it's something that I'll look at. It's certainly.

I have heard loud and clear from all the Committee Members the concern about the cannabis illicit market and not doing anything to make the problem worse. And so we'll look at that going forward. And I would appreciate your vote today.

Thank you, Dr. Bains.

Yes, no, I will be supporting this Bill today. I think listening to all of the comments, there's two fundamental things that are being debated today and that is the, you know, thriving illicit versus licit, legal versus illegal. What can we do to make sure the other side doesn't, you know, thrive? Nobody wants to see the illicit thrive.

But inaction is not also a good thing either. So we need to have action and its lack of our foresight to be able to determine and prevent that. So that is one debate and the other debate as well.

You know, I hear from the other side the implementation of a lot of the laws that we write here in the Legislature. There's a lot of laws that California writes and where is the implementation piece of that? And yes, that is also a fundamental debate in this institution.

But also I don't want our kids to be caught in between our fundamental debate. So I will be supporting this and I appreciate both sides arguments today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues, please. Assembly Member Macedo.

Just quickly, do any of our border states have these bans? Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, any of those states have bans on single use vapes?

No, the first full ban is in England.

Okay, so no other states. Currently California would be okay, so then my question is I'm going to kind of relate this to flavored tobacco. We talked about the cannabis piece. I know plenty of people that when they go to cross the border to one of these states, they just load up on flavored tobacco. And that's money.

That's a tax base that's going to other states that's supporting out of state businesses. I don't really know if there's any strongholds that. Let's take this a step further. In a year that we're trying to keep businesses in California support Californians and I may have missed this. I arrived a little late.

What percentage of a typical store that sells these kinds of products would a single use vape be? Do you know that off the top of your head?

I just know that for Cannabis it's around 80% that's already disposable. And again, the product is not being banned like flavored nicotine is banned. This is just changing the mechanism that delivers either the nicotine or the cannabis.

And it's something I think you meant to say 80% is reusable. Sorry, not disposable.

Or I should say thank you. But I don't know specifically in stores what it would be. I assume that if it's a legal dispensary or a legal convenience store, that the percentages are about the same.

I appreciate, like I said, the environmental concerns for our landfills, but I'm going to echo the concerns of a lot of my colleagues that I just don't think this is the solution. I think there's so many workarounds. I think there's other ways that you're going to embolden people that if they want to find these, they're going to.

And unfortunately we can't be in everybody's. Well, fortunately we can't be in everybody's business. So for that I'm not going to support today. I do think that there's room to grow as far as working with opposition on this. And it sounds like lots of my colleagues, all that they're supporting, have concerns.

So I know that you will work on this, but I won't be able to support today. So thank you.

Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Assemblymember would you like to close?

Just respect. I think we've talked long enough about this, so respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. And I want to thank everybody. I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee. I want to thank the witnesses who testified. I hope that every conversation I really, you know, this is a very thoughtful, detailed, you know, conversation with, with folks, you know, with legitimate concerns on, on all sides.

And I think that came out, which was great. I, you know, you've alluded to this and I want to make sure that all my colleagues understand this is not a silver bullet. This will not solve the problems of the illicit market. This will definitely not solve the problems of youth use of vaping products, because it doesn't.

That's illegal. That's illegal. And this Bill doesn't have to do with that. And you know, but this is a, that I think you used the word incremental step in the, in the right direction. From, from my viewpoint, I don't think this is similar to flavored tobacco.

I don't think the reaction of consumers will be the same because as the author has stated numerous times, this is not about the product, this is about the device. And so if somebody wants to drive to Reno because they really need to throw away their single use or disposable vape pens, they're free to do that.

That sounds like a lot of work when you could really just go down to the store and get a reusable one and charge it every couple days, every week, however often you need to charge it. This will not solve the issue of additional funding for enforcement, which I think is very important and something that I absolutely support.

And I think the Legislature has done some steps, gone, taken some steps to move in the right direction. I think there needs to be more.

And I hear the point that, I think you made the point that, you know, a lot of it's been going after the grows, not necessarily to the illicit stores and we need to do more in that space. But I do think, but I think this addresses concerns around environmental impacts.

I think this addresses concerns around the impacts to our waste facilities. I appreciate the tour you gave me, Joe, a couple of weeks ago. And to be clear, that's something that impacts all of us, right?

Because when our waste facilities have to what you said 20x more on insurance, that's going to be passed on to consumers and that's going to be and even if you haven't had a fire in your facility, the risk has gone up that you will have a fire in your facility.

And so that means that all facilities have to spend a lot more on insurance and that gets passed on to all consumers in California, no matter what county you live in.

And so I do think that there's still I appreciate the amendments that you've taken in the Committee that I think address some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition.

I know that you'll continue to have conversations with everybody Assembly Member Irwin, because I know that's the kind of Assembly Member you are and encourage you to stay open minded about additional tweaks to the Bill. But I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

So that bill's on call. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. So I see Assembly Member Castillo in the audience. Yeah. And you have agenda item number... For folks who don't know, we go with authors not on the committee before we go with authors on the committee. So please come on up and present agenda item number three, AB 1382.

Thank you for your patience. You got a head start on thinking about this bill if it comes to you on the floor.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. I am here to present AB 1382, which would prohibit the sale of genetically modified animals where the genetic modification is for cosmetic purposes.

While investments have been made to further genetic research for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun to develop the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfill consumer demand for designer traits despite unknown long term health risks.

These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well being of the animal as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis. As reflected in the bill's recent amendments, I want to clarify that this measure will will not inhibit genetic medical research aimed at benefiting society.

The language is explicitly curated to target animals genetically modified for the sole purpose of sale. Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to the committee staff who worked with my office on this bill over the fall. With me today to provide testimony is Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion in Legislation.

Great. You've got two minutes.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good morning, Chair and Members. Nickolaus Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion in Legislation. AB 1382 addresses two issues, preventing the exacerbation of the pet overpopulation problem and the questionable ethics of modifying animals' genes for the sake of novelty.

California animal shelters euthanize approximately a quarter of a million animals every year. There are not enough homes for all the animals being bred, and the public pays for that to the tune of about 400 million per year to operate animal shelters. And that does not include the millions that nonprofit rescues spend every year to save animals.

The last thing we need is for a novel pet, such as a glow in the dark rabbit, and I am serious, to become the latest fad on TikTok leading to these animals being bred at a pace that puts profit over their well being and later dumped on the side of the road after the photos have been taken and posted on social media.

Thousands of impulse buys later, after the novelty wears off, the public will be left to foot the bill and the animal to suffer. California Fish and Game regulations only regulate aquatic transgenic animals, which with the regulations silent on mammals and birds. From 2003 to 2016, the Fish and Game Commission banned the sale of GloFish.

At the time of the initial vote, one commissioner was quoted in the LA Times saying, for me, it becomes a question of values. Under what circumstances do we want to monkey around with the genome of an organism? To do it for a pet seems rather frivolous.

This bill will ensure that California does not encourage this burgeoning and indeed frivolous industry. It will reduce the burden of regulating this industry for both the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And it will save untold dollars that our state will incur if we add to our overflowing shelters or by disrupting our natural ecosystems with abandoned, genetically modified animals. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Give us one second. Is that mic on? Go for it.

Thanks. You can hear my voice again. Good morning again. Karen Lange on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, which is the statewide association that represents California's public and private nonprofit shelters. Everything that Nickolaus has already said is true. We don't need any more animals coming in the door that have been invented in a laboratory.

I'd also emphasize that they may be more medically complex because of the modifications that are occurring. And when people can't afford to take care of their medically complex animals, one of the most heartbreaking things that happens is they are surrendered to public shelters that are already... You've seen us in this committee a lot.

You know what we're under. We don't need any more animals coming in, and particularly medically complex ones that were literally invented to be that way, and we don't have the resources to deal with it. So thank you for doing an animal bill. We appreciate it and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. Come grab a seat. You've got two minutes.

Didn't turn it on. I apologize. Good morning. My name is Alyssa Miller-Hurley. I'm the Vice President of Government Relations for the Pet Advocacy Network. We represent the responsible pet care industry, and we are here in opposition to Assembly Bill 1382. Our concerns with this bill are that it is framed as an animal welfare measure.

And this bill, however, does not identify any demonstrated harm to animal health, public safety, or the environment that would justify such a sweeping measure. Our primary concern with this is the fact that it would ban the sale of genetically modified aquarium fish marketed as GloFish.

GloFish are things like zebrafish and tetras, which express fluorescent proteins resulting in bright, vibrant colorization and our ornamental pets. They are subject to extensive regulatory review both federally and here in the state of California and have been sold for decades through well regulated pet retail channels.

These fish both have explicit approval from California and federal state regulatory bodies. I emphasize that again because these fish have to go under undergo scientific approval by the California Fish and Wildlife for every new species that's being introduced. This process is extensive. The oversight is very, very thorough.

And our concern with this is that it would set a troubling precedent and open the door to banning regulated products based on aesthetics or perception rather than science. For more than a decade, GloFish have been sold in California. And each new proposal, as I mentioned before, has to undergo rigorous, rigorous approval through state regulatory bodies.

Assembly Bill 1382 would eliminate this long established and carefully regulated product category without any new scientific findings or evidence of harm to the animal or environment. This would override existing science based regulatory determinations and disrupt a lawful commerce and reduce consumer choice. Additionally, our concerns are with the ambiguity.

This ambiguity creates compliance challenges and legal uncertainty, particularly given the bill's severe civil penalties of no less than $5,000 per animal, which would be incredibly detrimental to small business owners here in California who sell ornamental fish and comply with the regulatory proposals that already exist within the state.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yep. Again, we're here to oppose this bill, and we're here to urge the committee to focus on science rather than emotion and aesthetics.

Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill or folks who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Got a motion. Got a couple seconds. Got a maybe question from Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

It's my understanding that the GloFish, which are FDA approved, are exempted from the bill. Can we clarify that?

That is my understanding as well.

Okay, thank you. So, given that, I want to say that I really appreciate what was done here. I happen to have a former science fellow in my office who might be the only person in the Legislature who has done this work and turned mice neurons fluorescent for his research for his PhD. This is actually a really...

I want to take note that this is a really important practice for scientific research, which the bill acknowledges and make sure we can continue to do important scientific research. But this isn't something that is necessarily always bad. This is often good in the scientific context.

And I think the bill is narrowly tailored to deal with allowing for those kind of advances that are critically important to our state and our world. So with that, I'm happy to move the bill.

Assembly Member Hadwick, and then Dr. Bains.

I just wanted to thank the author. As much as I really want a unicorn on my farm for the pumpkin patch, I am in full support of this bill. Thank you.

Yes. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, there is actually another person in the Legislature that did research on this in undergrad. So yes, not the only one. I did that in undergrad as well. And I do know that that was exempted in the bill. I was on the first questions I had asked. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. To Hadwick, no unicorns.

No unicorns.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I was an aye until the no unicorns part. Thank you, Assembly Member Castillo, for bringing this measure forward. It is important that in California, as we think about whether science could make something possible, we consider the ethics of whether we should.

While I'm all for using the latest science to improve animals' lives and the lives of their owners, I too have a lot of pause at this idea of glow in the dark bunnies. But I am glad that there's an exemption for for GloFish, and for those reasons happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On AB 1382, Castillo, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you very much. Moving on to agenda item number one, AB 739 by Committee Member Assembly Member Jackson.

Got a motion and a second. Got a bipartisan motion and a second. Dr. Jackson, we're ready when you are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to begin by thanking Committee on—with their help on this Bill. I am committed to accepting the amendments to remove the HOA Board education piece and clarify the specific fees. These amendments will be adopted in the Assembly Committee on Housing Community Development during tomorrow's hearing.

AB 739 aims to provide transparency to homeowners on fees charged by managing agents and common interest developments by requiring a managing agent to provide a summary of fees charged to Homeowner Association Board members and homeowners. With me today is Paul Herrera, on behalf of the Inland Valley Association of Realtors, to speak on the impact of this Bill.

Great. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Inland Valley Association of Realtors, the Inland Gateway Association of Realtors, the California Desert Association of Realtors, and the Greater Palm Springs Regional Association of Realtors, I'm here today to speak in support of AB 739.

The California Association of Realtors—our state association—has also authorized me to deliver a message of support on their behalf. AB 739, with the amendments, creates a very simple disclosure requirement to give the elected leaders of homeowners' associations a summary of what they as an organization and the collective members of the communities have paid for management services.

It's essentially a receipt that summarizes what the community has paid to be represented by a professional managing agent. About 15 years ago in the Coachella Valley, we noticed that HOA management firms were increasingly turning to fee for service structure rather than all-in management fee.

That trend has expanded beyond high cost golf course communities to include more middle class communities with HOAs. Much like a cable television bill, airline tickets, and hotel reservations, we've seen the trend move toward keeping basic fees relatively low, but covering fewer of the services required to complete the task.

In our conversations with owners and managers of a number of these firms, they have been clear that this approach is necessary to be able to competitively price their services. Some of those fees are paid by the HOA through a fee schedule that they've negotiated with the service provider. Some flow directly from homeowners to the service provider.

Ultimately, all of these revenues should be recognized as the complete cost of management to the community. California is certainly blessed to have some highly professional firms who provide clear disclosure of their billing to the HOAs they serve. Unfortunately, it's not universal.

AB 739 turns an industry best practice that supports informed decision making and makes an expectation in case in law. We'd like to extend our appreciation to Assemblymember Jackson for his work to bring AB 739 forward. Thank you for your consideration this morning, and we respectfully ask for Committee member support to move the Bill forward. Thank you.

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

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Come on up. You've got two minutes. We are good on that, but I appreciate you, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Andrew Hay and I'm a Board Member of the California Association of Community Managers, an association dedicated to enhancing the professionalism of community management industry. We provide education and certification to professionals managing common interest developments throughout California.

We currently have an opposed unless amended position on AB 739 and we'll be able to remove our opposition once the amendments revising the management fee disclosure are accepted in the Housing Committee. We'd like to thank the author and Committee for working with us to find a way to enhance transparency in a way that won't increase costs for homeowners.

The amendments strike this balance by clarifying what fees must go to the board and allowing homeowners to receive the same information upon request, but without a blanket mailing that imposes additional cost to all homeowners. Managers exist for the good of the community.

We are the only professionals that exist solely to serve the Association and implement board decisions for all homeowners. We carry the same fiduciary duty as the board members who serve their communities. We coordinate board meetings and materials, provide homeowner notices, assist attorneys, accountants, insurance adjusters, and other consultants.

We collect assessments, maintain general accounting, not to mention facilitate resolution between disputing homeowners. Without community managers, you'd have more self-managed communities run by a small group of volunteer homeowners responsible for managing millions in dollars, the property values of the homes, and their quality of living. Managers serve a critical role in making the HOA structure work.

Again, I'd like to thank the author for working with us and we'll remove our opposition once the amendments are officially taken in the Housing Committee.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition or present opposition? Future not opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. Pending the amendments being taken in Housing Committee, we remove our oppose unless amended position, move to neutral. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Bring it back to colleagues. Questions or comments? We already have a motion and a second. Dr. Jackson, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As a member of a homeowner's association myself, I did not know how complicated this Bill was going to be. However, with great debate and great discussions over the winter break, I want to thank the community managers and the realtors to be able to come to some conclusions.

Of course, a lot of those talks did not wrap up before the different deadlines were being met. And so, we do anticipate we make some amendments along the way, with my commitment to keep this Committee informed and very much involved every step of the way. I want to thank both parties for doing this.

Obviously, as we continue to see a growing number of HOAs being established throughout the state of California, these volunteers and the professional staff that they rely on, they need more help, they need more support, and they need more continued education and making sure that they know all the responsibilities that are necessary, but also to making sure that homeowners are empowered to be highly more involved than they usually are, unfortunately.

And so, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson, for bringing this measure forward. As a current member of one HOA and a prior member of another, how did you not think this was going to get complicated? Everything gets complicated.

But while the Committee analysis raises some concerns with language that's in the Bill before us today, I appreciate your statement that you're going to be amending the Bill to remove that language, with amendments taking place in housing, in Housing Committee tomorrow. With that Committee—with that commitment—I'm happy to support the Bill today.

I also appreciate your emphasis that any future discussions around possible future amendments and possibly adding new concepts or significant changes to the Bill involve my Committee staff. I appreciate that and I know they'll be keeping me apprised. So, happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you very much. That's right. Madam Secretary, please open the roll for any on-call bills.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out with 10 votes.

[Roll Call]

Meeting's adjourned.