Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Business Professions and Economic Development Committee. Committee amendments or sorry, committee announcements. We're gonna have 13 bills on our agenda. The following items have been pulled by the author.

File item number one, AB 957 by Assemblymember Ortega. And file item number nine, AB 1990 by Assemblymember Gibson. You know, I I just wanna set set the ground rules. There is no, clapping. There is no booing.

There is no verbal conversation from the audience. The way we typically have it will be the author will be presenting here. We are gonna have both, two lead support witnesses. Each of them will be given two minutes here, at this mic. Two opposition witnesses as well, and me too's will come together both in support and opposition of the bill.

And in the me too's, you will state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. This typically, we would like for you all to line up pretty quickly and and go through it pretty quickly as we have a number of bills that we have to hear and a lot of discussion. So with that, like I said, file item number one has been pulled. So we're gonna move on to file item number two, AB 928 by Assemblymember Rogers, regarding roosters and so forth.

Assemblymember, if you would like to present.

Would you like witnesses at the table? Oh, okay. Great.

And and we will be timing folks, so I just wanna make sure everyone understands they only have two minutes. Yep. The Me Too's do not have two minutes. They have name, organization, whether they support or oppose. Alright.

Right. No. Thank you so much, Chair. I'm here today to present AB 928, the cockfighting cruelty act. This bill addresses the unchecked, unregulated world of bird trafficking happening in gamefowl yards across the state.

Although cockfighting is already illegal in every state and under federal law, it continues to happen with alarming regularity. The USDA has actually, found that it is a multimillion dollar industry in California, where they estimate about 3,000,000 birds are currently being bred specifically for cockfighting. The five largest busts of cockfighting farms in US history all happened in California. The largest was a few years ago in LA, where they found over 7,000 birds being bred specifically for this purpose.

Cockfighting often happens in concert with other criminal activities, such as illegal gambling.

Cockfighting busts often involve a confiscation of illegal firearms, ghost guns, and drugs. The most profitable aspect of the entire cockfighting industry is the trafficking of these birds from yards where hundreds, if not thousands, of roosters are bred and sold for the purposes of fighting. These birds are bred for their aggression and are typically tethered or caged for most of their lives in close proximity of other roosters to stress them out and make them more aggressive. The this bill allows communities to proactively address this issue.

This bill would allow communities to proactively address this issue by establishing civil liabilities for those who traffic the birds for the purposes of fighting.

Specifically, this bill allows civil penalties for properties that have more than 25 individually tethered or caged roosters. If they have more than 25 roosters but they are kept with other chickens or free range, or not all of them are individually caged, they are exempt from the bill. This legislation exempts legitimate poultry operations and hobbyists, schools, animal agencies, rescues, FFA, 4H, and other show bird operations. This bill will not penalize people who raise roosters for legitimate exhibition purposes or backyard egg production.

The bill targets people who breed these birds for fighting.

Animal control and law enforcement know what these roosters track trafficking operations look like, but they currently lack the tools to deter them. Interestingly enough, every single member of this committee has local ordinances that are more stringent than this bill in an attempt to regulate, cockfighting in these counties. This bill is modeled after many of those ordinances, as there are over 16 already in existence in California. We read the committee analysis, and we, understand some of the questions from the committee.

I'm happy to get into it with members.

But just to reiterate, this is a progressive enforcement model that's done through animal control. The exemptions are for ag businesses, hobbyists, four h, FFA, untethered or specific showbirds and bantam breeds, backyard chickens, commercial poultry. With me, I have two expert witnesses. We have Jenny Berg, the state director for Humane World for Animals, formerly known as the Humane Society, as well as Beth Wyatt, who's the operations manager for Sonoma County Animal Services.

Okay. Before you begin, I'd just like to establish a quorum. It allows us to vote. So could we get a roll call? Wahab?

Here.

Wahab here. Choi Archuleta?

Archuleta here. Adagene Caballero? Present. Caballero here. Minjavar Minjivar here.

Here.

Nilo?

Here.

Nilo here. Richardson? Here. Richardson here. Smallwood Cuevas.

Strickland, Hamburg.

Thank you. And with that, you'll have your two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenny Berg, and I'm the California State Director for Humane World for Animals, the sponsor of AB 928. This bill directly addresses the cruel practices of cockfighting by getting to the root of the problem, the large scale illegal trafficking of fighting birds in our state. Despite strong existing laws, cockfighting continues to flourish in California.

This industry is driven by large scale gamefowl breeders who sell birds for up to thousands of dollars to cock fighters, both domestically and internationally.

California is widely recognized as one of, if not the largest source of fighting birds, with cases that repeatedly uncover breeding operations with hundreds or thousands of fighting birds. AB 928 complements existing California law by establishing civil penalties for individuals who possess more than 25 roosters on a property that are tethered or individually caged, conditions consistent with cockfighting operations. The 25 rooster threshold reflects a well documented operation scale within the industry and provides a clear, enforceable standard for intervention.

Importantly, the legislation includes explicit exemptions for anyone who has more than 25 roosters for legitimate reasons. The bill's language is a culmination of direct conversations with animal control experts and stakeholders.

It was crafted to ensure that it targets cockfighting practices and does not impact legitimate agricultural, educational, or hobby poultry activities. The ordinances address the ordinances throughout the state address residents' concerns regarding excessive noise, illegal cockfighting, and cruelty to animals. I urge you to support AB 928 to protect animals, our community, the poultry industry from clearly detrimental aspects of cockfighting. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I am Beth Wyatt, operations manager for Sonoma County Animal Services. We are in strong support of AB 928. I would like to share a recent Sonoma County cockfighting case that highlights the need for this bill. In late January, what began as a suspected DUI traffic stock by highway patrol led to the discovery of five severely injured roosters being transported in a vehicle.

An on call animal control officer responded to the scene. They discovered 24 slashers devices commonly used in cockfighting inside the vehicle. That traffic stop launched a multi agency investigation. In February 2026, investigators search served a search warrant on a rural Sonoma County property suspected of operating as a cockfighter feeding facility. What they found was staggering.

A total of eight thirty three live roosters were housed on the property. Many showed evidence of fighting injuries including deep cuts and gouges. After determining there is sufficient evidence of cockfighting activity, including the manufacturing of slashers for sale and use in cockfights, the sheriff's office authorized the seizure and humane euthanasia of all 833 birds. 10 animal control officers, two veterinarians, and a registered vet tech worked until 11PM pairing out the operation. The incident placed an enormous strain on Sonoma County Animal Services.

Many of the staff suffered workplace injuries and exposure to zoonotic diseases. AB 28 would provide small departments like ours with the additional tools and flexibility to work proactively with bird owners to manage flocks humanely and help prevent the spread of disease. AB 928 is essential to reduce cockfighting and eliminate illicit gamefoul operations where roosters are bred, raised, and trained specifically for combat. I respectfully request that you vote aye on AB 928. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Do we have one or two?

Okay. Two minutes. Good morning, Chair, members. Noette Badamo, representing California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in opposition of AB 928. The bill will profile communities of color, Latino communities.

The rooster represents the symbolic and cultural identity of many ethnic groups, and a new civil law will certainly and unfairly be used to prof profile Mexicans, Latinos, Asians, and other communities of color. Rural unincorporated communities are home to thousands of migrant and immigrant farm workers and their families. They will be targeted by law enforcement simply by hearing the rooster crowing. AB 928 will expand law enforcement's ability to issue civil penalties with the lesser standard of proof.

Under this bill, it is entirely possible that law enforcement may believe that a resident is in violation of the new law, appear at the resident's front door, demand entry and search, causing fear and uncertainty.

Should a citation result, then the resident will need to resolve the citation. That's if they can afford to pay the fine. Whether it is resolved or not, it will likely leave a record that is subject to investigation by federal immigration officials. AB 928 likely will result in the immigration official to define and apply the issue of moral against immigrant communities.

A new civil penalty is unnecessary and inappropriate as a federal administration is looking for creating new laws, redefining laws to use to deny applications, detain, and deport immigrants for civil offenses.

It is entirely feasible that the proposed bill may be used against noncitizens and naturalized citizens. AB 928 will likely result in more work for immigration attorneys and accredited representatives to investigate and research on a client's case. Currently, even if traffic ticket, a fix it ticket requires more work. Thank you. I appreciate your consideration.

Appreciate it. Next speaker, two minutes. And if we can have the me too's line up.

Good morning. My name is Jesse Ortega. I am the CDFA poultry health inspector, a twenty year veteran, and the president of the California Association for the Preservation of Gamefile. I respectfully appear in strong opposition to AB 928. Let me be clear.

Our organization unequivocally commends condemns cockfighting, animal cruelty, and illegal activity. Individuals who violate California law should be prosecuted. However, we strongly object to the continued characterization of law abiding breeders, exhibitors, and poultry enthusiasts as criminals simply because we oppose this discriminatory legislation. Our members are engaged in the preservation of historic bloodlines, participation exhibitions, agriculture education, and the responsible breeding and care of the poultry. These are lawful activities and important part of California's agricultural heritage.

AB 928 threatens legitimate businesses throughout the state, including free manufacturers, feed stores, veterinarians, transportation providers, and all other small agriculture enterprises that serve responsible poultry owners. At a time when many small businesses are already struggling, this bill creates additional uncertainty and economic harm. We are also deeply concerned about the disproportionate impact on immigrant, rural, and working class communities. For many Latinos, Filipinos, Southeast Asian families, poultry, husbandry is a long standing cultural tradition.

For many members of California's monks community, poultry has and also plays an important role in religion and ceremonial practices that have been passed down through generations.

Policies that broadly target lawful poultry ownership risk, burdening these communities, and infringing upon traditions that are central.

Appreciate it.

Please vote no or refrain from voting. Thank you so much.

Alright. We have, Me Too's. So, again, please line up. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose the bill. Thank you.

My name is Carlos Acosta. I'm with Senator Caballero's district in Fresno, and I oppose this bill.

Good morning here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in, in support. Sorry. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Dawn Ward. I'm from Placerville, and I'm just here as a member of the public, and I support this bill.

Jennifer Green, Alameda, California, and I support this bill.

Lily Kirby. I'm from Sacramento, and I support this bill.

My name's Randy Davis. I'm just here myself, and I disapprove of this bill.

Hi. How's it going everybody? I just like to, say that I oppose and a lot of the people here probably don't

Strictly strictly name, organization, whether you oppose or not.

Yes, ma'am. I understand. But you guys all need to understand where we come from.

Romero.

What's your name for the record?

Thank you.

I oppose.

You oppose the bill?

Strongly.

Doctor Barbara Hodges, California licensed veterinarian in strong support of AB 928. Thank you.

Heather Schroeder, California licensed RBT for Humane World for Animals, I support. Erica Iverly. I am a resident of Sacramento County, and I strongly support AB 928.

Hello. My name is Pam Runquist, and I'm here on behalf of the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance and more than 100 veterinary professionals in the state who's who joined with us in supporting the bill. Thank you.

My name is Margaret DeMott. I am associated with the Humane World for Animals, and I support AB 928.

Joe Libara, I do not support this bill. This is illegal entry to properties, and it's against the constitution.

Thank you.

Roberto Guzman and I oppose. Thank you.

My name is Lee Ramirez and I oppose.

My name is Daniel Reese and I oppose.

My name is Julio Lugo, and I oppose.

My name is Adrian Guadiana. I'm with California APG, and I oppose AB 928.

I'm Vince Panikid, and I'm from Sacramento County and member of the APG, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Nestor Puking, and I'm a resident in, Sacramento County and a member of APG. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Joe Talentino, and I'm here by myself, and I strongly oppose this bill. It's unconstitutional.

My name is Matthew Fairbank. I'm with the APG, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Michael Mahoney. I'm in Sacramento rural Sacramento County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Alvin Salibar, member of APG. I oppose this bill.

Manuel, Svido, member of the APG and APA. I oppose the bill.

Alfonso Romo from San Joaquin County. I am post appeal.

My name is Julian Hernandez from Lodi, and I'm an FFA member, and I oppose.

Name is Nicolas Larios. I'm from Orlando, and I oppose the bill.

My name is Jose Moreno, and I oppose my name is Jesus Moreno, and I oppose.

My name is David Amaya, and I support this bill.

Roberto Medina, Don Roberto Feed with a 140 employees. I oppose this bill.

I'm Mateo of Tulare County. I represent myself and I oppose. California. I oppose.

Enrique Sanchez with APG. I oppose the bill.

Luis Ramos, Yuba City, California. I oppose.

I'm Rogelio Sandoval. I oppose to this bill.

My name is Sergio Alejandra Junior. I'm from Butte County, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Sergio Alejandra and

Can you repeat that just a little bit louder?

Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association in support.

My name is Owen Ciardia from Sacramento County. I oppose AB 928 direct harassment for all of us.

Thank you.

Hi. Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of supporters throughout California in support.

Jack Werson from Nossman on behalf of the County Of Monterey in support.

Hi. Alejandro Hernandez, member of APG, owner of a farm and feed store in Fresno, and I strongly oppose.

Good morning. Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Bob Gutierrez with San Francisco SBCA in support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Alejandro Solis on behalf of La Cobertiva, Campesina, California, and Los Amios De La Comiad in in opposition, 928. Also, here on behalf of Central Valley Opportunity Center, the Center for Employment Training, First Day Foundation, California Human Development, Mothers of East Los Angeles, Asian Law Alliance, Comiteracion del Valle, Social Equity of Los Angeles, Wonderwood Ranch, Proteus Incorporated, and Amigo, all in opposition. Thank you.

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in opposition.

Emily Ayala with Chirla in opposition.

Good morning. My name is Jorge Antonio Hernandez. I'm with the California Association of Preservation of Game Fowl and the thousands of individuals who couldn't make it today in strong opposition. Thank you.

Jim Brim with Farmers Warehouse Company. We're a feed manufacturer in Stanislaus County and we strongly oppose this.

Adam Mendonca from Stanislaus County with Farmers' Warehouse, and we oppose this bill.

I'm Mateo Noriega, and I oppose.

Gustavo Noriega with Sutter County, owner of Live Oak Feed and Supply, and I strongly oppose.

Omar Moreno, Riverside County. I strongly oppose this bill. It lacks clarity for the enforcement agency and the community.

I'm Ronald Lechuva, part of the California APG, and I strongly oppose AB 928.

Edgar Garcia, representative with APG. This bill completely targets, not only farmers but also, people of color and Hispanics. I oppose.

Major Entapia, Madera, California, and I oppose.

Catherine Plummer, exhibition poultry breeder. I'm opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sue. I'm a business owner of a local feast store here in Sacramento County. And at the same time, I'm a representative of our Hmong community, community leaders, and we oppose the Hmong community. We all oppose this AB 928 as it will violate our Religion. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Doug Houston representing the ASPCA who are supportive of this bill.

Jesse Ortega from Orange County, and I oppose.

Alright. Do we have any other me too's? Seeing nobody else, we're gonna turn it to committee members. Committee members is Senator Caballero.

Good morning, Assembly member. Appreciate appreciate the work you've done on this bill because you've you've taken a number of amendments. And I I guess I I just wanna preface my comments. Well, and and I have some questions for you. I I just I want people to understand where the bill is now and and that we already have a system in place to stop cockfighting.

So if you're here because you like cockfighting, I'm sorry, but it's illegal and it shouldn't happen. And the people that set up the fights can go to jail because it's a misdemeanor or felony. The people that go to watch usually get a fine. And it's locals local enforcement, animal control, that does the, the work. And so animal control has the right to come on property.

Now they have to follow the law, but they have the right to come on property. They have the right to ticket people, for either engaging in the fight or for having the birds or, for going to or setting it up. And so that's already the state of affairs.

and and I also wanna ask you because it was a subject that was brought up in terms of religious exemptions. You've created a whole series of of exemptions that I think are important to talk about. And and I say this because I represent an agricultural community. And the it's different than living in a city.

And there are traditions and there a lot of the time, many of the immigrant groups that come to California live in rural cal California because they came from a rural community themselves and they understand agriculture and has and animal husbandry and growing.

And but but give it even with that, you've gotta follow the rules that are here. And, there's an exemption from so so let me just say that initially, the bill allowed the state to be able to take action, and it's been amended.

And that amendment fundamentally changes how the bill will operate because it's it goes back to the locals. So the locals already have this, this, responsibility and they have this obligation.

It just sets up another way to be able to, identify individuals that may be, raising roosters to fight.

And and so that change means that it's again, local enforcement using the same tools that they've had before. But they're now looking at the number of of roosters that are on the property and how they are housed.

Meaning, whether they're with other roosters or whether they're tied separately and in, a confined. So could you talk a little bit about that?

And then I want and if you could, the exemptions, because the exemption means that you you, are not subject to the bill or subject to this oversight if you're raising the roosters for religious purposes, for educational purposes. Please, if you could talk about that.

Yeah. No. First of all, I really appreciate the comments and and the questions and the conversations that we've been able to have. And I think if you look at the evolution of the bill, I think you'll see where each of these concerns have their fingerprints on the changes. And so the religious exemption one, that's actually a really important one to note. When we first introduced this bill, we really focused more on the number of birds just across the board.

And what we heard from some of the religious groups is that they sometimes require more birds than what were actually in the bill.

That actually a focus on the conditions where in which we were raising the birds was a bigger indicator on whether or not they were being raised for cockfighting. That you could raise more birds, but if you raise them around hens, or if you raise them so that they can free range, or if you raise them so that they are living in better conditions, that that was not necessarily an indicator of cockfighting.

But that the conditions wherein which they're raised, where they're individually tethered or they're in the the lock boxes where it's completely dark, that that was an intentional decision that oftentimes was to make them more aggressive for cockfighting.

And then as we started working through that to see what the number was, we were talking with exhibitionists and hobbyists to say, well, actually, there are some times where you might want to have them individually tethered, breeding purposes, to make sure that they're able to continue, the types of of species, and that we should build more exemptions into it around that, opportunity as well. I think, you know, I I mentioned many of the the, exclusions, exemptions that we have in the bill.

I'll just mention some of them again. If you're an ag business, if you're a commercial poultry operation, if you're a hobbyist, 4-H, FFA, if you have untethered birds, if you have specific types of showbirds that we worked with the the groups, we found that there are specific types of birds that actually aren't good for fighting and don't fetch a high price when they're trying to sell them. Those are exempted. Things like bantams, which are the tiny birds, are not particularly good for fighting.

And maybe if that becomes an issue down the road where that's what they're finding at at cockfighting, that's something the state could look at.

But we found that that's not the case right now. So we exempted bantams, backyard chickens. We made sure that we walked through all of these exemptions working with folks as they came forward. And I actually think if if you're interested, I think Beth Wyatt with animal control can kind of explain when they do see that conditions, how they're able to evaluate it. Because at this point, it is a way for us to see whether there's legitimate operations.

There's there's certain types of medications that you see with cockfighting that once they actually are able to take a look at the yard, even if they have individually tethered birds, there's a difference between a yard that is raising chickens for the purposes of fighting and somebody who just likes chickens. And I and I I love chickens. We had chickens up until I had my little guy just a couple of years ago. And and so I think if you're interested, she can explain that as well.

I don't I I won't I won't need that, but I think that the important the the important parts of the bill are that you're focused on the breed of the of the rooster that is used specifically for fighting Correct. As opposed to the show birds, as opposed to the breeding birds, those kinds of roosters, those kinds of things.

And then and then finally, I wonder if you can address the issue that's been brought up by the the the social justice or immigrant rights groups. Because the reality of the situation is that if you're is that what you've created is the opportunity to fix a problem if it's if if you're in violation of the tech technical violation of of the the the structure that you've set up. Can you can you explain how that works?

Because I think this takes care of some of the concerns that have been raised. But but right now, as we sit here, if there is an enforcement against fighting fighting cocks.

That that if you're as I said at the beginning, if you're watching an an exhibition, it's a fine. It's an infraction. Right. If you're putting it on, that's where it's a it could be a misdemeanor misdemeanor or a felony. Correct?

Yeah. And and look, this is some of those other amendments that you see in the bill is because we were sensitive to that concern. And we only had one group that reached out to us in the first year and a half that this bill has been in print that had concerns around the social justice angle. And the concern, particularly in our Latino community, about what we're seeing with ICE, We took amendments to specifically address their concerns, and they removed their opposition.

We now have new opposition that came in within the last week. We were just hearing this morning that there may be other folks that have some concerns. We are more than happy to work with those folks on that. That is not the intent of the bill. This is its fourth committee hearing. It's been in print for a year and a half.

So we're working with folks as they come forward. We've reached out proactively to folks. If we didn't hear back, we assume that that meant that they were fine with the bill. But we're happy to continue to work with folks when it gets to appropriations before it goes to the floor if there are some of those lingering concerns.

But what we did do in the bill was build in this acknowledgment that the progressive enforcement model that most of us are familiar with with code enforcement at the local level, that it starts with a notice for them to fix it, not a citation.

So I heard one of the opposit people in opposition say that you're gonna start with a citation. It'll go to the court system. That'll be data that'll be used against people. That's actually not the case. In this model with animal control, they go in and they can give a warning, and we delayed implementation of the bill for a year and a half so the counties can make sure that they are able to educate folks ahead of time.

If that doesn't work, code and animal control does have to go in. They can give the person a written warning where they have two weeks. None of that information on the written warning goes to the courts or gets captured in any way by the court system for for immigration purposes. They have minimum of those two weeks to be able to rectify the situation. That also will be subject to local county ordinances.

The counties can write a longer, waiting period if they want or or carrying period if they want as well. And again, just to kind of punctuate the point, every single member of this committee has communities that have more strict ordinances right now. And that concern, if you have not heard it from your constituents that that's currently taking place under your county ordinances, there is no reason to think that adding a state level, bill that is less restrictive than those ordinances should increase those those concerns.

But we will take that seriously. We will meet with those groups and try to make sure we rectify that.

Okay. I I appreciate that. Yep. And I'm gonna support your bill today. I appreciate all of the amendments you've taken. They address the major issues that I had.

And as I told you at the beginning, I'm from rural California. I'm not particularly fond of of of of going after people that are doing legitimate agricultural that are working on legitimate agricultural issues, mom. But I think you have narrowly, you've worked on the bill to narrow it and to be very specific about what you're looking for, and I really appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. And I'm gonna remind people that we have roughly 13 bills today, and so we're trying to keep our comments concise. And, Senator Menjivar.

Assemblymember, going, a a little bit more on what the, Senator started. Can you walk me through you started touching upon what happens when first it's a warning Yep. Then it's the $2,500. Yeah. How would one confirm, that they in fact have are violating the law?

Yeah. So first, it starts with a complaint. Right? And that's when animal control can go in there and say, you know, we've got this complaint. Can we just see?

Right? In which they already have the ability to do under in every county in the state. If they go in and the conditions show these conditions that we've laid out in the bill about the individual tethering and and in the animal control expert's opinion, this is consistent with what they see in yards specific for for game birds for for the for the sport, they can issue a warning.

And as I said, it's a minimum in the bill of fourteen days to be able to cure or rectify that. It could be cured by untethering the birds so that then when they come back to look in a couple of weeks, the conditions have completely changed.

It could be cured by giving birds away. It could be cured by changing those conditions. And so at that point, if they've cured it, no citation, no violation. If they have not, then it could lead towards a citation where animal control will go through their progressive enforcement model, where it depends on how much of compliance if the person's trying to comply and they just haven't figured out. Typically, they get a lot of more leeway with animal control, with code enforcement to be able to do that.

But it's really aimed at when people are notified that they are not in compliance and then they are not taking steps to try to correct that, that's when the citation could come in.

Is there in current law now or would your bill allow DHS, anybody under DHS to enforce this law?

There's nothing in our bill related to that. I my assumption is it would and I can check with folks. But my assumption is that it would all be governed by how the counties themselves currently do it. What their code enforcement model is. Some counties, as you know, have very different requirements on public agencies on what data they can and can't share.

But, with a written warning system, there is no notice of a citation. Nothing that gets put into any system that could be accessed outside of the county.

Recent opposition today, we saw, you know, CHIRLA came on and did a mid tune up in opposition. One of your recent supporters are the National Association of Gang Investors, and they work closely with ICE. It's a huge concern that someone is supporting your bill in potential assumption that they're gonna be utilizing this to give more ability for them to come knock on people's doors. Brown individuals knock on their doors under this, umbrella to be able to go inside their homes. Can you speak a little bit more on that?

Yeah. And I'm certainly happy. As I said, the opposition, we heard about it this morning. We have not had a chance to sit down with them. We are more than happy to with with CHIRLA to to be able to have that discussion ahead of appropriations.

I think some of the support for the bill is not even just because of the ability to look at the game yards, but because of the activity that is typically found at cockfighting rings themselves. So you do have some law enforcement support on the bill specifically because they're trying to find tools to address this downstream. When we first introduced the bill, you actually had penalties that weren't just financial penalties that were in the bill.

And we took that concern from folks very seriously that it could lead towards or that it could be profiled against, which is why we changed the entire structure of the bill to focus instead on the civil penalties.

Is there parameters around how big or small the enclosure? Because it says if they're enclosed or tethered. If someone has over 25 in enclosure, but it's a wide enclosure, does that also exempt them? Or how big does or small does enclosure have to be?

I I don't believe we have that in the bill. I think we left that up to the discretion of the animal control officer based on the conditions that are on the ground, but we're certainly happy to look at that.

Okay. So if they're not enclosed, someone can have five a 100 roosters.

Correct.

Yes. Okay. So it doesn't limit them, their ability.

That's right. Yep.

And can you remind me, in LA County, what's the limit there?

Yeah. So currently in LA County, the limit is two roosters on a parcel that's, half an acre or smaller, and 10 roosters on an acre, on one that is, above that, half acre threshold. So even if this bill passes, the ordinance that exists in LA County

Been in existence for a while now.

Been stringent.

That's correct.

Okay. And because this has been an ongoing problem, Sacramento County actually just passed their ordinance last week. So some have been in in around a lot longer, some not so much. But one thing that has been fairly consistent, if you talk to law enforcement, is that after these ordinances go in place, you see less cockfighting busts in those counties. So it is working.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

Okay.

Would you like to close?

No. I just I appreciate the conversation with folks. As I mentioned, this is its fourth committee hearing for this bill. We still have two to go, one in Judiciary, tomorrow, one in appropriations if we're able to get that far. We are more than committed to working with folks, especially on the the concerns around immigration.

That is not what we're trying to do with this bill. We're just trying to give additional tools for our counties to be able to address this this scourge. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Caballero. Can we get a roll call vote?

Motion is do passed to Senator Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Alright. That bill's gonna be on call. Thank you. Alright.

We're gonna move on to File Item Number Three: AB 1199 by Assembly Member Patterson. Again, I just want to reiterate to keep our comments as brief as possible as we have a long meeting ahead. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Here today to present AB 1199, sponsored by the California Hospital Association. AB 1199 simply aligns California law with the federal laws that have been in place for quite some times regarding accreditation standards by allowing hospitals to re-credential and reappoint medical staff every three years rather than two years. Obviously, with a different process with California than the federal government, it's pretty burdensome. This is a pretty simple, common-sense change, and I believe with me today I have Vanessa Gonzalez from the California Hospital Association to testify in support.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, here in strong support of AB 1199. 1199 is a straightforward bill that simply aligns California law with current federal and national accreditation standards by allowing hospitals to re-credential and reappoint medical staff every three years instead of every two. Importantly, AB 1199 retains strong oversight and physician competence and patient safety.

Hospitals continuously monitor practitioners through peer review, quality improvement activities, and ongoing professional practice evaluations, and they retain the authority and obligation to take immediate action whenever concerns arise. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Seeing none, we're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we're going to move on to MeToo's.

Good morning. George Soares with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other MeToo's? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to committee members. Seeing none, would you like to close?

Move the bill.

All right.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Niello. Can we get a roll call, please?

Motion is do pass to Senate Health Committee. [Roll call].

All right. That bill's on call until the other members show up. We're gonna move on to our author that is here, Assembly Member Chen, AB 2537: File Item Number 12. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate your time. I just wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2537. Also wanna thank Alyssa and your staff, your committee staff for their incredible work in analyzing this bill, and I'll be accepting all of the committee's amendments. AB 2537 strengthens public health protections by prioritizing enforcement by Department of Cannabis Control, DCCC--DCC--against contaminated and unsafe cannabis products.

This results in greater enforcement of technical violations by licensed operators while more serious risks receive less attention. Our bill directs regulators to focus enforcement resources on the most serious threats to public health and safety by defining risk of harm and enforcement prioritization policy. Our bill creates the categories of minor, moderate, and serious violations to ensure that the DCC can prioritize regulatory oversight in a manner consistent with enforcement and prioritization policy.

Our bill does not reduce the Department of Cannabis Controls's enforcement authority and bolsters legal market integrity and public health protections for Californians. Here with us to testify today, I have Amy Jenkins, on behalf of California Cannabis Operators Association.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, proud sponsors of AB 2537. I wanna begin by thanking the author and committee staff. California has built one of the most comprehensive cannabis regulatory systems in the world, yet nearly a decade since Prop 64's passage, approximately 60% of cannabis activity in California remains illicit, and that is based on the state's own economic analysis.

That means the majority of cannabis consumed in the state is still produced and sold outside the regulated market. AB 2537 is based on a simple principle. When enforcement resources are finite, they should be focused first on the violations that pose the greatest threat to public health, consumer safety, environmental protection, and the integrity of the legal market. Our members fully support compliance and accountability. In fact, they invest significant resources every day to comply with California's extensive regulatory framework.

The issue before us is not whether those violations should be addressed. The issue is how limited resources are allocated. Over the past several years, many of our operators have experienced excessive notices to comply and other compliance actions relating to highly technical or administrative issues--can relabeling, name badges not being worn in a conspicuous location. While these issues remain important and should be corrected, they often require substantial time and resources to resolve. AB 2537 does not eliminate the administrative technical violation process.

It does not reduce DCC's authority in any way, but it does ensure that, again, limited resources are prioritized to really protect public health and safety, which is, I believe, what the legislature intended when they passed the adult-use framework and merged it. This bill provides a transparent framework. We want violations to be directed towards diversion, sales to minors, unsafe products, environmental harms, and other conduct that presents a material threat. For these reasons, we strongly support this bill today and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to lead opposition. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to MeToo's. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. I have a comment. The-- I'm assuming this is gonna require rule-making. It may be that it can be done in an expedited fashion, but if they have to follow the rules, it takes 18 months. It just-- so if we make implementation dates too soon, then it doesn't happen. But the other comment in the analysis asks that you continue to work with the stakeholders and I just wanna make sure that you're committed to doing that to make sure we're including as many as possible.

Absolutely, Senator. Thank you so much for your comments. This, of course, also has a mandated annual reporting period which will always be reviewing this to make sure it's more efficient and effective as bringing the stakeholders into the conversation, Senator.

That's great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right. Seeing no other comment-- oh. Senator Niello.

Just to clarify, this is prioritizing enforcement in the legal market, not in the illegal market because there was some intent language that specifically--if I understand--specifically mentioned the illicit market, but I think the bill itself is prioritizing actions only within the legal regulated market, or am I mistaken?

What it prioritizes-- that's correct. Enforcement in the legal market, but also the resources, as you know, Senator, are so finite that some of these resources, if taken away and not properly prioritized, will not have the opportunity to go to the illicit market in order to do the enforcement in the illicit market, Senator.

Yeah. That-- I'll support the bill. That, of course, is probably the biggest challenge to the entire market as it is. I will not go through my rant about the legalization of marijuana. Again, I've got plenty of coverage otherwise. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Could I get a motion? Thank you. Senator Richardson moves the bill.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

All right. That bill's on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. We're gonna move on to File Item Number Four. Give me two seconds real quick.

Alright. File item number four, Assembly Member Bryan, AB 1349.

Again, would like to remind everybody to keep their comments short, and concise. Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 1349, a bill that, among other things, ends the practice of speculative ticketing by requiring that sellers of tickets own or have a contractual right to sell the tickets before listing it on a resale site. Before I begin, I wanna thank the committee for all of their hard work and the many phone calls and text messages over this past weekend, including on Father's Day. Every year fans across and I'll be accepting the amendments.

Every year, fans across the state who are trying to see their favorite artists are deceived by sellers that don't have tickets, don't have a right to sell those tickets, but list those tickets online for sale anyway at a significant markup.

It's a harmful practice known as speculative ticketing. It's inherently anti consumer. In the vast majority of cases, the seller does not disclose to the consumer that it is a speculative ticket. And when they click buy now, fans aren't actually buying anything. Nothing tangible.

In fact, unknowingly, fans are making a calculated bet, paying upfront, hoping that a bot or a scalper will be able to buy the ticket at some point, a ticket at a lower price that is then reposted for the price that the consumer paid, that Markup. In many instances, fans are left without tickets altogether. In the most extreme cases, fans show up to venues believing that they had bought a ticket, leaving small venues to clean up the mess when these deceptive selling practices occur.

One of my favorite thing about presenting this bill is every time I present it, we look up tickets that are for sale today for shows that have not started selling tickets yet. The rapper Rod Wave has tour tickets that will be listing that are on the secondary market for October for his October 1 concert in Inglewood, even though the presale for official tickets does not start until tomorrow, June 23.

We've had examples of that all year. This bill has had bipartisan support up until now, received over 60 votes in the Assembly. It brought Gavin Newsom and Kid Rock together. President Donald Trump did an executive order around speculative ticketing. And it's not often that the president and I agree on this issue.

But as a consumer and as a fan, I know it's the right thing to do. With me to testify are Jim Cornett, the owner and operator of Harlow's, and Ron Gubitz, the executive director of the Music Artist Coalition.

Alright. Each lead witness will have two minutes. You will be timed. Our MeToo's, again, state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Jim Cornett. I'm the owner operator of Harlow's, The Starlet Room, as well as Cafe Colonial in here in Sacramento. I represent the National Independent Venue Association of California, which is a trade association representing over 650 venues and festivals. As venues, we sell tickets, we staff the box office, we handle the rope lines, we book and promote the show.

We're involved in every aspect, including having to speak to the guests who have bought a fake ticket or an overpriced ticket and aware that they're on a secondary platform. Opponents would have you believe that empowering the secondary market will increase competition. StubHub is not our competition. They do not produce shows or support artists. They show up these hearings at consumer groups that will not talk to the independent venues or the artist coalitions.

How can they call themselves consumer friendly when they deceive consumers with these deceptive practices? We're now hearing the stories from the the ticket buyers of the World Cup. People are getting their tickets canceled and moved to less desirable seating just so brokers can resell them at a higher price. These are the things we deal with on a nightly basis.

The opposition to the measure also argues that this proposal strengthens monopoly hold on the industry, and they have continuously referred to my venues our venues as tentacles of a monopoly.

I sit here today as a small business owner representing an organization that is the largest source of competition for Live Nation. This bill bans speculative tickets, tickets for sale at a secondary site that have not been assigned seating or put a ticket price to. Consumers are especially at risk because these sites use our venue's likeness, and without disclosures, fans will not know to go to our website where tickets go for a much lower price.

AB 1349 helps independent venues protect our customers. It helps fans know that they are buying what they are buying.

It helps restore tickets in the ticket buying process. Trust the ticket buying process. I would urge you to listen to the small business that live this every day, not the well funded interest that profits from the status quo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Next speaker, two minutes again.

Thank you. My name is Ron Gubitz. I'm the executive director of the Music Artist Coalition. We represent artists including Billie Eilish, Meghan Trainor, Earth, Wind, and Fire, and Don Henley, and we need your help. We got amends yesterday afternoon, and we need to further review them to make sure that they achieve the protections for fans and artists that this bill intended. And so we thank you and and look forward to continuing to work with you on that.

This is just a sample of posts from users in the past week on the StubHub subreddit. No replacement tickets available. StubHub corrupt. StubHub is just terrible. We had to cancel your ticket order in quotes.

Fan protect guarantee. The closest they could protect us with was parking for the event. Scammed. StubHub lied to me. I purchased six tickets months ago, only be told they can't sell it to me.

Now the tickets are four times the price. I cannot even afford one ticket now, let alone four. StubHub scammed me out of $522, and I have receipts. Don't use the platform. And the casual way this company changes order terms contradicts its own representatives, and stonewalls customers who push back as genuinely predatory.

Know that their fan protect guarantee is worth absolutely nothing when it actually matters. 86% of California voters believe that people or companies should not be able to sell tickets that they do not actually possess. Resellers list tickets they don't have, hoping to grab them later and cheaper, and then pocket the difference, a game of arbitrage. The fan is often the one left holding nothing. Fans can't sue.

They're forced into arbitration at an address that has changed, I believe, four times in the last year. And even if they win, a refund does not make them whole. A concert is not a toaster. You cannot return it and get another one. The show happens once in one place at one time.

It's ephemeral. When it is gone, it is gone. AB 1349 stops this before it starts, so please vote yes or your constituents and our fans will continue to buy hotels, travel to shows, and find out on the day of that they are locked out because something because of something that this body could have prevented. Thank you.

Thank you. Lead opposition witnesses. You get two minutes as well.

Thank you, madam Chair. Good morning and members. Robert Harrell, I'm the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. We are opposed to this bill. Let me just note a couple of things.

Number one, the author and I had a good conversation on Friday afternoon and I'm not complaining that my Father's Day got blown up also, but it did. But that's not the point. So I wanna briefly talk about how we got here, very briefly. And then I wanna talk about something that has not really been coming up in the hearings on the bill, which is what the bill actually would do and what the actual language of the bill would would effectuate.

So we got here because we have a monopoly.

I sound like a broken record, but let's not forget Live Nation Ticketmaster, which in fairness merged under the Obama administration, ever since then has acted like a monopoly and has used and abused their market power. Don't take my word for that.

Take the word of a jury in the Southern District Of New York who unanimously found that they are a monopoly, and now a judge early next year is gonna get to determine whether you break up that monopoly or what other kinds of things could be done to help consumers in this space. By the way, this is an issue that unites conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill. So this is not a partisan issue, nor should it be a partisan issue.

That gets lost sometimes in the conversation here. So I'm gonna mention two quick things. One, the World Cup. I would argue that the problem with the World Cup is the very monopoly problem that we're trying to address here. FIFA has a monopoly.

It is universal that the prices are outrageous, and those prices are coming from the Gianni Infantino corrupt FIFA itself with monopoly power. Okay? Secondly, I heard conversations about

the from the small business venues. And I agree. People showing up with a fraudulent ticket that got it on a fraudulent website, they that's not right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, two minutes.

Madam Chair and members, thank you. My name is Juanita Martinez, and I'm here on behalf of the California Live Events Equity Alliance. CLIA is a consumer focused organization whose members support affordable access to live events and fair competitive ticket and a comp sorry, a competitive ticket marketplace. As you've heard from the consumer federation, California continues to lead a role in their antitrust litigation at the federal level involving ticketing industry.

At the same time, the governor has proposed additional resources for the attorney general to continue pursuing antitrust investigations and enforcement actions. For that reason, we believe that ticketing legislation should continue to be reviewed through the lens of how it may affect ongoing litigation and future remedies. As policymakers, we should be careful not to inadvertently codify business practices that are currently being challenged by regulators or undercut the important work being taken by California's AG on behalf of consumers.

When this bill was introduced, CLIA was opposed and had strong concerns that certain provisions would reduce consumer control over lawfully purchased tickets and limit the ability of consumers, including season ticket holders, to transfer, sell, and give away tickets they could use. Like others, we received the proposed committee amendments late in the weekend, and our members are still reviewing the language.

However, based on our initial review and today's discussion, we believe the committee's amendments have moved the bill in a more consumer friendly manner. We truly appreciate that the dedication and the efforts imposed by the committee consultant and the Chair over the weekend. We are particularly encouraged by the efforts to address speculative ticketing and fraudulent activity while preserving important consumer protections. We wanna thank the Chair and the members and look forward to continuing to work with the author on this very measure. Thank you.

We're gonna move on to Me Too's. Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose. In this part, we would like to go very quickly, so please line up anytime.

Good morning. Ross Buckley on behalf of City of Sacramento in support.

Morning. Erin Niemela on behalf of StubHub. We have an OUA position. Appreciate the amendments. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of SeatGeek and, TickPick, also an oppose unless amended position, to thank the author for the amendments. Look forward to continuing to work as we review them. Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Saragosa on behalf of Hispanic one hundred. We remain opposed unless amended, but thank you for the, committee, the work from the committee, and thank you for the author on those amendments. Thanks.

Thank you. And if we can stick to name, organization, whether you support or oppose.

Madam Chair, members, James Jack. On behalf of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, we have an oppose unless amended position that we will be revisiting. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair. Jose Barrera, California League of United Latin American Citizens. We remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Alex Torres in the interest of brevity on behalf of 20 NIVA venues throughout the state and strong support and sponsorship.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the San Francisco Forty Niners, Major League Baseball and their five California clubs, the Giants, the Athletics, the Dodgers, the Angels, and the Padres. We all strongly support a ban on speculative tickets. We are reviewing the amendments to ensure they don't restrict our ability to enforce our conditions

Again, it's support or oppose. Let's keep it to that, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Diana Ordaz Charrington representing Women in Business Connections. We currently oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Roberto Arnold with the California Multicultural Business Alliance. We oppose unless amended.

Good morning. Doctor. Tecoy Porter with the National Action Network Sacramento Chapter. We are currently opposed unless amended. We thank the appreciate the work of the committee and Chair.

Good morning. Gemma Gonzalez with California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Ruben Guerra with the Latin Business Association. We oppose pending amendments.

Good morning. Doug Kessler on behalf of Paton two nine four. We're opposed to that.

Good morning. My name is Estea Kessler. I'm with the Central Valley Latino Elected Officials Coalition, and and we oppose.

Good morning, Chair and members. Isha Ayer on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Good morning. Delilah Clay here providing an OUA position for the California Black Chamber of Commerce.

Good morning. Ahmad Holmes, part of the California African American Chamber of Commerce. We're in oppose unless amended.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, members? Seeing none, Senator Archuleta.

I've studied the bill, so I'm gonna go up on it with the understanding that the amendments you're gonna take the amendments and then you're gonna be working with us. Right?

Oh, absolutely. The Chair and I have had many conversations over the last couple days.

Okay. Because that was the issue. If you're taking the amendments, because if you're not gonna take them if you do, I'm with you.

I don't think there was ever a second from the amendments being sent to us where the Chair had any doubt that I would take them.

Good. I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.

Thank you. Senator Caballero. Yes.

I wanna second them. Glad to hear you. I apologize. I was out of the room when you accepted the amendments. But just wanna emphasize that we all got these very, very late.

And as you know, language is important and we wanna make sure we get it right. I spent two years of my life that I will never see again trying to do this the last time and I wanna make sure we're getting it right. And, you know, the discussion about the whole monopoly situation is really ancillary.

It's front and center, but it's ancillary to this discussion because there are some practices that make it very difficult for people to be able to get tickets and to protect the artists. And so I appreciate you taking on that charge.

I've breezed through the language and I expect to see it again, the bill again. So I'm willing to support the direction that the bill is going in at this at this time, the measure. So Senator. Appreciate your accepting those amendments. Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you. If I can bring up the Dodgers and the 49ers, I just I didn't really get if you were there, if the amendments helped with the franchises in California.

Sure. Thank you. So, all of the teams, support a ban on speculative tickets. There were some concerns with implementation on the bill in print. The amendments appear to address all of those.

However, we are still reviewing those and wanna make sure that nothing in the amendments, limits or restricts our ability to enforce our the team and league terms and conditions.

And I'll just follow-up with the author. You'll work with the franchises here in California to make sure it doesn't disrupt. I'm a big Dodger fan.

I work with the Dodgers on anything.

Okay. Alright. Alright.

The Giants maybe not

Yeah. Okay. Alright. Hey. That's my kind of guy.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Look, as was mentioned by the Consumer Federation, these issues often bring together unlikely allies. This bill had the support of some staunch conservatives in the Assembly, and the author is arguably one of the most progressive members of the Assembly. And what got me interested in this topic is that I go to shows. I go to concerts.

And speculative ticketing is anti consumer, period. Irrespective of how you feel about Live Nation and Ticketmaster, but it's potentially having a monopoly over primary sales, that's a whole other conversation. Speculative tickets don't exist yet. It's not primary sale and it's not secondary sale. And these deceptive websites say things like, buy now, going fast.

They haven't even gone on sale yet, and they're marked up. We made good faith efforts all the way through the process and especially coming to here that I would hope would allay the concerns of many of the folks who've been in opposition. We we made heavy concessions because we're coming at this from what we believe is a righteous and honest place. And what I've learned through this process is I don't think there's a good actor between the secondary market and the primary market at times.

The good actors are the fans and the consumers, and that's who we should be fighting for, and that's who this legislation is fighting for. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Motion is do passed to Senate privacy digital technologies and consumer protection. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Thank you. We're gonna move on to file item number five, AB 1693 by Assemblymember Zabir. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair members. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick and mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3,000,000 Californians over 500,000 retail establishments, supporting statewide local economies. This sector is one of California's largest small business employers providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities and others.

Across California, small businesses and retail establishments space unprecedented local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardships such as increased project cost, delays in business operations, and stagnant economic activity. When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it hurts not only the business, but also the workforce and the surrounding community. Current law creates a streamlined approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects.

Establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small businesses to thrive in California. AB 6093 aims to address this by requiring local building departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and ensure these improvements meet all applicable building health and safety codes.

This bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit within twenty business days of receiving the complete application. Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or denies each subsequent resubmission within ten business days of receipt.

AB 1693 is critical as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards. I wanna just say that just last weekend, I was actually at a parade in my district and Senator Durosso's district. I was going down the street and pretty much in every single block, there were two, three, sometimes four existing businesses that were basically shuttered and we are in need of having retail folks move in and this would also help revitalize our communities.

So with that, I I wanna thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill is Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association.

Hello, Chair and cosponsors. I'm Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association, proud cosponsors of AB 1693. We thank Assembly Assembly member Zibur for his partnership on this critical issue. The California Retailers Association is the only statewide trade association representing every segment of retail from grocery and pharmacy chains to specialty stores and hardware version jewelry and auto. These are the businesses on main streets throughout your districts.

As Assembly member Zabura stated, AB 1693 requires a sped up process for approving or denying tenant improvement applications within twenty days. Retailers across California routinely wait months for permit approvals on basic interior build outs. Average processing times run about twelve weeks and in some jurisdictions stretch to thirty one weeks or more. Along the way, businesses face multiple rounds of comments, portal outages, and shifting intake requirements.

To provide a recent example, one member company told us they've submitted an application in April and still haven't received a review.

If approval doesn't come by July, they will miss the window to complete improvements before the holiday season, their most critical sales period. These delays aren't just frustrating. They cost jobs, raise construction costs and cause multi cause some retailers to abandon projects entirely. For small and mid sized businesses, especially, time is money that they don't have the waste. For these reasons, the California Retailers Association proudly cosponsors AB 1693, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thanks.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none. Lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none.

Me too. State your name, your your organization, whether you support or oppose. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to committee members. Senator Capoeira.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a question in regards to the qualified professional certifiers. Are you anticipating a self certification process? In other words, the architect has designed the interior and then they certify it themselves?

There would be a certification, but there we in discussions with SEIU and ask SME, there would still be a review, and it wouldn't be deemed approved. So the certifier would actually, go through and make sure that they were compliant with code, would be certifying code, and would provide the details of what's required so that it would allow for the city, or the local jurisdiction to actually review these things more quickly. And then we set up the 20 the twenty day time frame.

Well, the question the question I'm asking is, is it someone else or is it the individual? In other words, do I get to grade my own paper is what I'm saying. If I get to grade my own paper, I'm not I'm not that comfortable with it because you're you're you're basically asking the city to do an expedited process on a self graded paper.

If it's someone else, like, if the city has a list of qualified certifiers and you can go off that list, pick someone, they they review you and then they're ready to go, then I'm okay with it. But if you're if you're grading your own paper, I have that problem.

You know, I don't

And we asked your staff and we couldn't get an answer back, which is why I'm asking

you that.

We we will we will we'll look at that issue. I actually I'm sorry that I that I wasn't brought up to speed to that question. What I will tell you is that disqualifications for the professional certifiers, we will look at actually whether or not we need to do something like that as part of the bill as we move forward. I will tell you that they don't get to grade their own paper.

That was one of the big issues that we actually had with SB and SEIU and and about it sort of they're not bigger review process at the city and it being automatically deemed approved.

So the professional certifiers actually do a lot of the work so that there can be a a an expedited review when it gets to the city. And the city will still be doing a review and there's not a deemed approval process as part of this bill anymore.

Okay. That that's that's good. I in in other words, you don't anticipate that you do you grade your own

paper No.

But we need we may need a a something in the bill that indicates that. And I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Choi.

Okay. I have a similar question on a clarifying myself. I'm all for expediting the process for any remodeling tenant improvement. That's very important. Sometimes as I hear, it takes us twenty days to thirty one weeks, which is ridiculous.

Every city has their financial problem. They don't have any enough plan checkers and actually site checkers. There are as far as I understand, there are two levels. You submit a design plan for remodeling or tenant improvement, then that's a plan check and they have to approve it. And then the contractors will execute and do the remodeling or rebuilding.

And then next step is Citi will have to send out inspectors in the check. Are we talking about all of it or plan check stage?

Just the plan check stage.

Plan check stage.

So everything that happens after the plan check, this is to get the approval so that you can actually get the permit and start the work. Everything after you get an approval, including the inspections, the code inspections, all that remains the same.

Okay. So initial question that I hear is that you are not sure that any qualified architects and engineers, they will know what they are doing. That's the reason they are licensed to practice. So on behalf of their customers, they will submit their designs. And you are trying to skip that process of city or county to review the plan?

So there wouldn't be a skipping of the city or county to review the plan. What would happen is you'd have a professional certifier, an architect, or an engineer that is actually helping create the, the permit application and

then That's the self certifying means that I'm an architect and I'm an architect.

Alright. These are the building code requirements. They certify that it meets this one, it meets this one, it meets this one, it meets this one. That would still go to the city, and then the city would then have to review that certification. And then, you know, a lot of the work would be done ahead of time so that they could actually have an easier way of reviewing it, and then it would require a streamlined review.

Still, they have to go through

the city? They still have to go to the city. Yes. And check it. It's you don't submit

Initial problem was that they don't have that time there. They they for for whatever reason, their their waiting time is so long. And all the design, a plan is all drawn by certified architects and engineers. So it's confusing. Well, how are you gonna expedite the city?

It's already your staff members.

So when you when you typically do submit plans to the city and there may be a certification that it needs building code standards, but basically, this would require that the certifier goes through, identifies the code requirements, identifies how it meets the requirements. It would be an attachment to the to the plans that are submitted and so part of the work would be done so the city doesn't have to do all of it when it comes to it.

But it would still have the authority to review it, to check it, and make sure that it that it agrees.

Okay. They they will go through the check boxes that the city officials owe no money to? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

You know, this is an important, you know, our brick and mortar retail economy is really under stress right now and a lot of, you know, and we're and many jurisdictions are trying to get these, retailers, allow them to survive and continue to be vibrant in our communities as we're facing losses. And we also have a lot of these things that are shuttered and only need interior establishment, interior work.

And so this is something that, you know, I think we should be doing everything we can to, keep, you know, our brick and mortar retail establishments, alive and thriving, and this bill moves in that direction. So with that,

I would respectfully ask for your high vote.

Thank you. Do you have Bill? Thank you. Senator Richardson moves the bill. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Motion is do passed to Senate Judiciary Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Aye. Troy, Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Adeguin?

Herriero? Aye. Herriero, Aye. Menjivar? Nilo?

Aye. Nilo, Aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, Aye. Amberg.

Alright. That bill's on call. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we have Assembly member Haney Ward, Carrillo, Alvarez, and Hart Hadwick show up to the committee if they would like to present their bill. Our sergeants have called, so we're gonna just again, for those staff members that are listening, please have your authors come down. We will move on to file item number eight, AB 1826, Assembly Member Lackey.

Thank you, madam Chair and members for allowing me to present this bill, AB 1826. And I wanna take, this moment to formally accept the amendments as proposed by this committee. AB 1826 strengthens due process protections for licensed cannabis businesses while it preserves the department's authority to protect public health and safety. Under current law, when the DCC believes products are misbranded, adulterated, or otherwise unsafe, it may issue embargoes, mandate recalls, seize products, and pursue condemnation proceedings.

While these actions are essential to consumer protections, existing law provides limited safeguards for licensees.

If a product is brought into question, a business may face product embargoes or destruction without timely access to the evidence supporting the action. Cannabis products are often perishable, and inventory can expire or lose market value before disputes are even resolved. Therefore, AB 1826 requires the DCC to provide documentation at the time it issues a notice of misbranding, adulteration, embargo, or recall to ensure proper communication with licensees.

I have my witness here today to testify, and it's vice president of the California Cannabis Industry Association, Zoe Schreiber.

Good morning, Chair Rahab and members. I'm Zoe Schreiber, the vice president of the California Cannabis Association, sponsor of AB 1826. This bill is a targeted process oriented bill that strengthens the effectiveness and credibility of cannabis enforcement in California. Under current practice, when the department issues a recall or embargo, licensees often lack the underlying evidence and the clear procedural pathway forward. That uncertainty can stall resolution, increase costs, and destabilize otherwise compliant businesses.

AB 1826 addresses this by establishing clear, workable standards that improve both regulatory transparency and operational efficiency for an industry subject to time sensitive compliance priorities, including those associated with public health and safety. This bill does four main things. It requires the timely disclosure of key evidence at time of, the enforcement action is noticed. It creates a structured informal meeting process with a department representative knowledgeable of the matter.

It sets a defined timelines for embargoes and condemnation actions, including prompt removal of embargoes when product is found compliant and expedited proceeding for perishable goods.

Those timelines are critical to preventing avoidable economic losses and keeping products moving through regulated market through while still advancing public health. Finally, the bill clarifies that licensees are not required to waive their appeal rights in order to cooperate with recalls or remediation, reinforcing fairness while still enabling compliance. Importantly, this bill does not constrain the department's ability to act quickly when there is a legitimate public health concern.

Instead, it provides a clear framework for how those actions are carried out, improving consistency, reducing friction, and supporting a more stable market. For a regulated industry to function well, the rules must be not only strong but also predictable.

AB 1826 delivers on that principle. Thank you to the committee staff for working on the matter with us and for the technical amendments. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Do we have me too's?

Chair members, Alicia Prieg on behalf of Kiva Brands and Kiva Sales and Services in support.

Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association in support.

Good morning. Shanta Paikin on behalf of the Cannabis Distribution Association in support.

Alright. Seeing no other witnesses, seeing no senators, would you like to close? Okay. And would you like to close? Would you like to speak?

Okay. Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. Thank you for bringing this forward. Assembly member, both you and I have served in law enforcement. You know that we're against illegal usage across the board. But when you have a legitimate business that are having difficulty, and I've had calls and I'm sure you have too, that they just couldn't get in front of anyone to go ahead and and, look at the fine or whatever the situation was.

So my question is, this informal conference, will they have the power and who will be that individual to move it along or to take it to the next level?

Miss Shriver, would you like to answer that?

Yes. We built in someone who's, knowledgeable about the process. At this point, we do have an opportunity to do that, but the department has sent people lower level staffers, people who handle, application work licensing, who don't know anything about the process or the things that have come up that have triggered any of the, enforcement action.

So the issue is, again, getting to somebody to listen and this will open that door.

Correct. It requires that person.

Legitimate businesses that are being affected by the illegitimate businesses. And we've gotta open up the doors and make it profitable for them to operate within the law and certainly to go ahead and adhere to the county and state laws that we have on the books already. So I think it'll take us in that direction. So I will move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yeah. I'll just say this, that the DCC is a very difficult job by not over regulating those who are trying to comply with the law and empowering the illicit market. Because right now, the illicit market is in charge. And whether we like it or not, that's reality. And we need to do the things that are reasonable so the legal market, those comply and and those who actually care about public health will be empowered.

And that's what this bill does.

Thank you. And for clarification, I just wanna make sure you are accepting the committee amendments. Correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. With that, we have Senator Choi who made the motion. Let's do a roll call, please.

Motion is do passed as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi?

Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta?

Archuleta? Aye. Arteguin Carriero? Aye. Carriero, aye.

Aye.

Menjivar? Nilo?

Aye.

Nilo, Aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, Aye. Smallwood Cuevas.

Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, Aye. Umberg.

Alright. And for clarity, I believe we have absent member Senator Smallwood Cuevas, who does not have anybody that will be serving in her seat for the moment. So, I just wanna be very transparent with that. We have other absent members, so that bill is on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we're gonna move on to final item number 10, Assemblymember Carrillo, AB 2166. And if we can have the sergeants call other members to come down.

Good morning, madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for having me, and allow me to present AB 2166. Back in October, I had the opportunity to visit Malmo in Sweden along with other members to learn how Sweden is successfully addressing their housing crisis. Just like our constituents, the Swedish face high prices and severe housing shortages. And just like California, Sweden is searching for innovative solutions to bring relief to their people.

One of the most successful strategies has been investing in expanding factory build housing. Factory build housing is when either the entire unit or various panels are constructed off-site in a factory before being shipped over to the assemble on-site. Factory build housing is cheaper, more efficient, and has a wide variety of different designs. Unfortunately, off-site housing factories in California struggle to find projects and stay open because they are unable to get insurance coverage.

Insurance coverage is important because for housing projects, each component is expected to have coverage for the percentage of cost that they contribute to the project.

So for example, if the materials are 30% of the cost of the project, the material providers are expected to have insurance to cover at least 30% of the value of the entire project. Because factory built housing is a relatively new industry in California, these factories do not have a long project history. This causes hesitancy from insurers. This in turn makes some builders reluctant to contract with these factories, scared about what may happen if the factory fails.

This then leads to these factories having even less projects since it's secondly still having a short history.

This cycle is a maker failure, market failure with broad public consequences. Without intervention to address this issue, California will struggle to stabilize factory capacity, preventing major cost reductions to repetition and scale. AB 2166 is that intervention. This bill will create a state financial backstop to allow companies to ensure these California based factories allowing contractors to feel confident that they will deliver on these promises and lifting these factories out of this negative cycle.

With me to testify is Marina Espinosa from California Housing Consortium to testify as a co sponsor.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee members. Marina Espinosa here with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing, and we are proud to sponsor AB 2166. Factory built housing presents the State with a meaningful opportunity to lower construction costs and reduce construction timelines for housing projects. However, there is still some level of reluctance from investors to put resources into factory built projects due to the perceived risks associated with this product type.

AB 2166 plays an important role in promoting growth in the industry, preventing factory closure, and reducing financial risk for development teams. We've heard stories from developers who have had to pivot from factory built to site built construction as a result of factories going out of business. In these cases, developers had to absorb significant costs due to factory closures and costs associated with the redesign needed for them to to pursue site built construction.

In another case, a developer lost a substantial deposit on a project when a factory went out of business. By creating a financial backstop, the state would accomplish two goals.

The state would make it possible for surety companies to ensure more modular factories and protect development teams against factory failure. It would also demonstrate confidence in the industry, which would attract private investment and help promote industry growth. AB 2166 is a critical bill that ensures that factories have a greater greater level of stability and a steady pipeline of projects. I strongly urge you to support this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, lead opposition. Seeing none, me too's.

Chair members, Alicia Priego on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Graciela Casio Crings on behalf of the Abundance Network in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Seeing none, committee members. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I'm a little confused. Why would it be so difficult to have insurance for the construction of the type of housing? If is it a financial thing, a financial backing? Why the insurance?

Or is that for the finished product? It's not looked at as the same. What's the issue in insurance

for you? Thank you, Senator. I believe that the issue is because they don't get us many orders to produce the number of units that are required. And I believe that's one of the reasons why I'm not the insurance expert. But that's my understanding that because there isn't enough production, they they don't want to insure this type of of housing units.

So is this going to go to the insurance commission or committee at all?

Is it This is going to the housing committee next.

Okay. So what what do you see with this bill passing? What doors will open for you?

I see for those current factories that are here in California, the small factories staying here because these backslaps is what is providing some sort of relief in case they are not successful. And there's also a budget ask going along with this bill of $75,000,000 to be able to have that backing for those small factories that are currently here in the state. Okay.

But the product itself, once it's placed on a piece of property and constructed, put together, that's not an insurance issue with them.

I don't believe that's the issue, Senator. I think that once once the production demand keeps growing on these small factories, then they will be able to provide better insurance rates like any other insurance.

I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Assembly member, would you like oh, Senator Niello.

My concern about the bill is related to, Senator Archuleta's questions. If the surety issuers are not willing to finance the risk that you're asking the government essentially to take, it seems to me perhaps this market is a little bit too risky even for the government to take. And for that reason, I think it's at this point probably impossible for us to, assess the, financial requirements. Now I know that's an appropriations committee, or that decision is made is made elsewhere and this is on the policy.

But but when there is that much of a question mark as to the viability of the industry, it's, more economic, cost notwithstanding, we would never be able to experience that if if the if the industry as a whole just can't get off the ground.

It just seems to me that the the risk that the government would be taking on is too great to overcome the affordability issues that you're trying to address here. I realize that's a comment, not a question, but you can certainly address it.

I think that's one of the reasons why we are trying to do something different. We have tried so many things to increase the number of units that we need in the state. This industry being able to provide these housing units at a lower cost, it's just one way that I believe we can increase the number of units that we need in the state. As you know, housing continues to be a challenge for us.

What we've been doing obviously has not created a number of housing units that we need.

There's been a more affordable way to provide these units and providing that backup for these small factories that are doing this, I believe that that's one way that we can do something different to create a number of housing units that we need in the state. Thank you.

Alright. Would you like to close?

I choose respect. We ask for an aye vote.

Senator Richardson. Sorry.

Sorry.

So sorry.

No problem. Are we I'm, backfilling for Grayson. So, I'm new on this bill of reviewing it. Is this primarily regarding mobile homes or what type of homes are we referring to that are being pre premade?

This type of house units could be single family homes, could be multifamily condominiums, sky scrapers, six, seven stories high. Not so much ice scrapers, I take that back, but six stories high. And what we saw when we went to Sweden, that's some a way that they're doing very effectively putting these units together up to six stories. And that's just what we're trying to do again, trying to have a different type of construction methods to build the number that we need.

And I should mention that this is a package of housing models that we're trying to do that came out from that visit to Melmo in Sweden.

There's about six or seven other, bills that are still going through the process, to be able to Again, build the number of units that we need in the state.

So, I just wanna speak on behalf of the author and support. Normally, I do work on the other area that's not kind of prefab but this is a growing industry. It's something that you can do a lot faster because the pieces fit together as opposed to kind of, you know, eyeballing and measuring and and all of those kinds of things. So not to say that it fits everywhere and for everyone but there certainly is a role and so I'm definitely gonna support the bill today.

Thank you, Senator. Sure.

Alright. We're gonna move on to, again, closing.

Oh, again, thank thank you for all the the comments, the conversation, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And then do we have a motion?

Yes. Motion.

Senator Archuleta moves the bill. Can we get a roll call, please?

Motion is do passed to Senate Housing. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, Aye. Choi.

Aye. Choi, Aye. Archuleta.

Archuleta, Aye. Arreguin. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, Aye.

Aye.

Menjivar.

No.

Niello Niello, no. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Strickland.

Thank you.

Alright. So that bill is on call. Appreciate it. Again, reminding authors to show up to the committee, and real quick. Alright.

So, we're gonna move on to file item number 13, AB 2667, by Assemblymember Hadwick. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Permission to pass around a prop

of a vape? Sure. It looks like a Sharpie.

Yes. It's a deceptive vape. So you guys can take it out and look at it and inspect it as as well. I would not, but it's up to you. I believe in freedom of choice.

Thank you so much. And I would like to first thank the Chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issues. Teenagers and adults in America are buying roughly 12,000,000 disposable vapes per month, and four and a half vapes are thrown away every second. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and early exposure increases the likelihood of long term addiction and adverse health outcomes. As a mom of teenagers, I fought the vaping crisis with my own children.

We don't yet know we don't yet have the research research to know the full damage that vaping will have on our youth, and rural areas are seeing higher statistics than anyone. In my schools, almost every kid has tried. Half of them are addicted. When we asked kids what the percentage of the school was vaping, they almost always said eighty percent. And when I asked the parents that same question, they would say ten or 20%.

An even more troubling trend is kids are using vapes at school disguised as everyday items, like pens, key fobs, chargers, highlighters, and hoodie strings. Some have features intentionally designed to increase dependency and addiction, like built in video games. These hidden devices make it harder to train teachers and staff on what to look for, and look and stop their their students from vaping in class. Even if a school can detect and confiscate these disguised vapes, the school have no way to dispose of it.

As a tobacco use prevention education program director, I had a drawer full of vapes that I could not do anything with because as a school collecting them, they're considered hazardous waste.

While a parent can take a vape to a household hazardous waste facility, a school cannot, since it's not considered to be created by a household. When these vapes do make their way to a facility, they're unable to process them cost effectively. A special permit is required to separate the nicotine or cannabis cartridge from the battery and other electronic components.

Because some vapes are disguised, some waste facilities will never catch them, such as the Sharpie that's being passed around to you now, leading to battery fires and release and release of hazardous waste. Disguised vapes are poisoning our kids, causing fires at my small, underfunded waste facilities, and wasting precious taxpayer dollars and additional processing costs.

AB 2667 bans deceptively marketed and disguised vapes targeting children that look like a handheld video game, food, candy, school supplies, or clothes. The bill also reduces vape processing costs by allowing household hazardous waste facilities to safely disassemble vapes. And finally, this bill requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control to address the management and disposal of vapes confiscated by by schools. AB 2667 will protect kids, support schools, and ensure that hazardous materials are handled responsibly.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by the bill's sponsor, John Kennedy, with the Rural County representatives of California.

Okay. You will have two minutes.

Thank you. John Kennedy with RCRC. We're pleased to be here and today as a sponsor of AB 2667. We're focused on school safety and cost savings for our facilities. As local governments were charged with solid waste and hazardous waste management, local governments operate about 200 household hazardous waste collection facilities.

We're seeing more and more vapes. They generally cost us about $350 per five gallon bucket. We can get about a 150, maybe 200 vapes in that bucket. Schools are having incredible problems trying to figure out what to do with vapes and how to properly manage and dispose of them. So this is a three part bill.

First, we're trying to find easier pathways for schools to manage vapes. So our facilities can take vapes from some small schools, and dovetailing into some federal guidance that's incredibly helpful in that respect. With respect to disassembly, as I've mentioned, these are very expensive for us to manage. If we can separate the cartridge from the rest of the vape, we can put a lot more cartridges in that five gallon bucket and manage that for the same cost.

And then, we wanna make sure we're doing that safely, so in consultation with our local Koopas and FireFolks.

And then finally, on disguised vapes, you've seen the Sharpie vapes or video game vapes out there. There are hoodie vapes, highlighter vapes, you name it. Incredibly creative. We are very concerned not only from the school setting and perspective, but also if we can't tell that they're a vape and have embedded lithium ion batteries in them in our solid waste facilities and our recycling sort lines, they could get crushed, and catch fire. So it's a safety issue for our facilities as well.

So for those reasons, we're we're very happy that Assembly member Hadwick introduced the bill and happy to address any concerns or any other suggestions that may come up along the way.