Assembly Natural Resources Committee, Monday, April 13, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Natural Resources Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Good afternoon, chair O'Brien and members. My name is Christie Pistoni, and today, I'm actually presenting on behalf of Pistoni Family Winery and Vineyards.
Redner 1
I'm just gonna stop you for one second. How about we leave them at the edge of the committee, and members who wanna go take a look can Perfect. Head over at any point.
Redner 3
Yeah. I would just add that one is a complete compost finished product, and the other has, plastics. They've both gone through forty five days, and, the material with the plastics and bioplastics in it has gone through forty five day complete system, and it's not completely composted. So that's what you're looking at.
Redner 3
Okay. Thank you, chair Bryant and, Cecilia, for having me come today. I'm actually presenting on behalf of agriculture, Pistoni Family Winery and Vineyards, and as a member of the California Compost Coalition. My family's been producing compost for over sixty years. We are also consumers of that product.
For more than a century, we have been cultivating vineyards in Napa Valley. We founded Upper Valley Recycling Compost Facility in 1966 with the first grape harvest of Robert Mondavi Winery when we began composting their grape residual. We also produced the first aerated static pile composting system in California in the early nineteen nineties. Farmers purchased roughly two thirds of all compost produced in the state. Protect protecting these agricultural end markets is essential, not just for our industry, but for California's role in the national food production.
Redner 17
Growers demand high quality compost free of contamination. One of the primary standards they rely on is the organic national standard certification, which prohibits plastics, including compostable bioplastics. In practice, many of these products do not break down in California's composting system and instead contaminate the final product, which is what you see right over here. To maintain quality, composters must screen out the plastics that increases costs that are ultimately passed on to local governments and ratepayers. Without this bill, the state risks contaminating the soil that serves as the foundation of California's $60,000,000,000 agricultural system.
Redner 3
AB eighteen twelve provides a clear and practical solution by prohibiting plastics from being marketed as compostable. This aligns with consumers' expectations with the realities of our infrastructure and protects critical agricultural markets. We respectfully urge you to support a b eighteen twelve to keep plastics out of the compost stream, safeguard the integrity of California's composting system, and continue to provide crops and ranch lands a pristine soil amendment. Thank you.
Redner 5
Good afternoon. John Kennedy, rural county representatives of California. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties here today to support AB eighteen twelve. As local governments were charged with managing solid waste and meeting the state's solid waste and organic waste diversion and recycling goals. Under SB thirteen eighty three, local governments must divert organics from landfill deposition and procure minimum amounts of compost or recycled organic product.
So as local governments, we find ourselves deeply involved both in the production and consumption of compost. Many local government facilities, not all, but many run composting facilities, as you mentioned. We're always on the lookout of purchase always on the lookout for purchasers of those products. The vast majority will go to ag where certification is organic as a paramount importance. The challenge with compostable plastics is they don't fully decompose as you can see here in our facilities, doing great part to the fact that they must meet ASTM standard specifications.
Those standard specifications don't meet California's real world operating conditions. ASTM anticipates that compost facilities run typically a 180 cycles, whereas California facilities will run much faster on the order of about forty five to ninety day cycles. So it could take compostable plastics two to four times through our facility to meet the standard for degradation. That makes no sense as facility operators, especially when we're producing something a product that may be inferior in the minds of many of our purchasers. So as such, compostable plasters are largely viewed as contaminant, were removed as a hindrance from our facilities during operations.
On the other hand, local governments have to procure under thirteen eighty three, and the compost that we procure, we want to be clean. We don't wanna to procure compost that is littered with incomplete incompletely digested plastics for our local parks, for playgrounds, gardens, things like that. So the issue is we don't have any powers, local governments, to control what gets introduced into the stream of commerce. At the same time, we're being left, of course. We're being forced to manage the wastes that are introduced into that stream of commerce and that generate significant profits for the manufacturers who introduce those materials.
So this imposes significant cost for us as waste management entities, reduces the marketability of our products to the extent we can't screen them out. And for these reasons, we're pleased to support AB eighteen twelve. We think it will increase recyclability, increase marketability, improve production of compost in our facilities, and reduce consumer confusion. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, John. That was a solid two and a half minutes, but you're a stand up guy. Are there any folks here in the committee room in support of this measure?
Redner 8
Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the Organic Farming Association, and Arts and Ecology Center in support.
Redner 5
Chris Grogan with Capital Abstee on behalf of Republic Services in support.
Redner 15
Mandy Strela on behalf of Rethink Waste, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, People Food and Land, and CR and R Environmental Services in support.
Redner 16
Good afternoon, chair members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Stop Waste in support.
Redner 17
Reid Addis on behalf of the Caloosah, Sonoma, Monterey, and Napa County Farm Bureau's Aggerman, the Association of Compost Producers, and Zero Waste San Diego.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Do we have any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Welcome. Two minutes apiece in whatever order you like.
Redner 43
Mister chair, members of the committee, my name is Dylan Finley, and I'm here today on behalf of the Biodegradable Products Institute, BPI, the leading certifier of compostable products in North America. We respectfully oppose a b eighteen twelve unless it is amended. The National Organics Program, NOP, embedded in statute through a b 12 o one in 2021 is the real crux of California's issue relating to compostable products. That federal program was designed twenty five years ago to regulate farm inputs on certified organic farms. It was never built to evaluate compostable products.
Redner 18
California is the only state that has tied the validity of compostable claims to a marketing framework never designed for them, creating an impossible standard. AB eighteen twelve doubles down on this mistake. The consequences for California's organics waste diversion and methane reduction goals depends on a functioning organic stream, and certified compostable products are the number one tool, especially film bags, the number one tool consumers use to divert food waste from landfills. This bill forces those products back to traditional plastic and back toward the landfill, the exact outcome SB thirteen eighty three was designed to prevent. We are genuinely sympathetic to composters.
Our industry does not work without their success. We are not asking them to change how they operate, only to ensure that those who want to accept certified compostable materials and the food waste that is associated with them can continue to do so. Remove the NOP requirement from state statute, and farmers receive the same compost they receive today while our products continue advancing the goals of SB 54 and provide consumers with environmentally responsible options. I wanna sincerely acknowledge the author's office for good faith engagement. BPI excuse me.
BPI is committed to staying at the table so long as the NOP removal is genuinely considered. Thank you.
Redner 6
Hello, mister chair and members of the committee. I am Shannon Morgan Stearns. I'm the president and chief commercial officer at the company called Repurpose. I'm here today to respectfully oppose 1812, unless it is amended. Repurpose was born in California, just like me.
The company was built on a simple but urgent edict that single use plastics are a crisis, and consumers simply deserve better options. Our founder, Lauren, saw the damage that single use plastics and throwaway plastics were creating, and she set out to do something about it. We built a company in Los Angeles dedicated entirely to giving consumers a very green alternative, a legitimately green alternative, at the stores where they already shop. Every product we make is certified compostable made from plants. California agreed with Lauren's vision when it created SB 54.
It that requires that all packaging and food serviceware be reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Other businesses have followed our lead, and they are investing significantly in order to create options for consumers. Compostability is not a nice to have. It is one of the avenues and one of the three compliant avenues that SB 54 provides. But AB eighteen twelve, as currently written, would actually eliminate compostability as an option for consumers.
Redner 18
It would effectively ban certified compostable products like ours, products that exist specifically to replace that throwaway plastic. Companies like Repurpose would be forced out of the market, and our employees would be forced out of their jobs. Store shelves with a reliable green alternative would be sent back to only the old fashioned plastic varieties. It punishes companies like ours, and it leaves consumers with no other good choice. As a business leader, as a mom, and as a third generation Californian, I please ask you that you insist this bill be amended or reject it.
Redner 6
Without the change, a b eighteen twelve doesn't advance California's environmental goals. It actually dismantles them. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there other persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 4
Thank you, mister chair and members. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respect of position, but appreciate the author and her team and the proponents for continuing the conversation. Thank you.
Redner 21
Forget my voice. Sarah Polomu with the California Retailers Association in a respectful opposition, but echo Don's comments. We really appreciate the work with the author's office, and we'll continue working with you.
Redner 22
Bruce Mignani on behalf of Novomon and NatureWorks, oppose unless amended. And, again, appreciate the author's office for their openness.
Redner 23
Good afternoon. Nick Lapas with Californians Against Waste. We also have an oppose unless amended position and similarly echo the the sentiment of appreciating the conversations we've had with the author's office and the sponsors. Thank you.
Redner 24
Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. Oppose unless amended, but look forward to future conversations. Thank you.
Redner 12
Sorry. It's Matt Yastine, Biodegradable Products Institute, but also a born and raised California resident, in San Jose. And I oppose unless amended, and I look forward to having future conversations with you as well.
Redner 25
Hello. Edwin Borbon on behalf of AmeriPen, the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Redner 27
Excuse me. Good afternoon, chair. Adam Reilly on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Wanna respectfully say I got the letter in late. We're gonna have an oppose unless amended position, but look forward to working with the author.
We'd like to see a pathway that resolves all issues. Thank you.
Redner 11
Thank you, chair. Appreciate the author's work on the bill. I am gonna be supporting it today. Do you have a couple questions? And I know there's a concern from some businesses I'm hearing about it from the district who are trying to comply with SB 54 as to how those efforts will be affected by the bill.
Redner 5
So I'll try to. S p 54 requires everything that's introduced in terms of single use packaging to either be recyclable or compostable. And local governments will have to accept in our recycling and composting streams everything that CalRecycle determines is recyclable or compostable. For recyclable products are are one thing. On compostable products, I think we are concerned.
Businesses may view compostable products as being something they could turn to. But from our perspective, we'll have to accept them in our facilities, either screen them out or find a way to manage them. The heart of SB 54 was that local agencies would have all of our costs paid for by the manufacturers who introduce their materials into the stream of commerce. We're not confident that that is going to happen. We're waiting for 54 to come through.
We're waiting for the reimbursement process to work. We're very nervous as local governments about hearing that we may, get incentives for some of our facilities that take these materials. Incentives are not fully offsetting our cost of moving from forty five day compost period to a 180 compost period so we can take these materials. So I think from our perspective, those are some of our concerns about expanding what's compostable and how we have to manage things on the back end and may not get reimbursed for those.
Redner 28
Thanks. And then secondly, I wanted to flag some of these same businesses are raising the concern about removing the NOP requirement. Wanted to put that on your radar and give you a chance to discuss how that may or may not affect certified combustible products and packaging.
Redner 5
So I I think one of our concerns with removing the NOP requirement, the vast majority of our finished product goes to ag. Ag wants something that's certified as organic. And so if we then lose two thirds of the market that we sell our compost to, we're left holding a lot of compost that no one really wants. So that's our real concern about NOP. We'd love to have conversations about stuff that can actually degrade in a much faster environment like we have here in California.
Not a hundred and eighty days, but let's talk forty five to the ninety day cycle that we have here. And that addresses at least some of those concerns. But then you still have concern with ag that is going to want something that's certified organic.
Redner 3
Yeah. I'll just I'll just add that most of the customers that we sell to in ag, which is two thirds of the compost goes to ag, wants the organic certification, and it's prohibited. So Counter Cycle looked at this, two years ago about bifurcation of the system, and they decided that it isn't, cost effective to bifurcate the system. Also, when you when you're certified organic, your equipment has to be 100% only touching that equipment. So you would have to basically steam clean all of your equipment that you're using if you had a bifurcated system.
So we've talked through some of the 54 stuff, about what it would look like for a bifurcated system, it's really, we don't really know what the cost would be because it's so outrageous. CalRecycle had already decided that it it it wouldn't work. So it's this is really important to, the farmers in California that they have a clean stream that is free of plastic and bioplastics.
Redner 7
Yes. Listening to everyone today, it appears to me that it's a simple mechanical, physical screening process would eliminate about 99% of this problem. Is that a is that correct or incorrect, sir?
Redner 3
Oh, I'm not exactly sure what mesh they use. Usually, it's like a three quarter inch screen, but that could have been a bigger screen.
Redner 3
So one of the other questions about, s p 54, and we've talked to manufacturers of this material type, is if we could screen it and give it to them, they could come pick it up, but it's gonna be mixed with all plastics and all contamination because we can't differentiate between what is a bioplastic and what is a plastic. And when you look in that jar, you will not be able to differentiate between what is a plastic and what is a bioplastic.
Redner 7
I come back to particle size, but that's a that's a physical separation process. And and when I looked at those two samples, it'd be very, very easy to screen one to duplicate the other. That's all. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any other questions, comments from the dais? Seeing none, we do not have a quorum yet.
Redner 1
so What? When one arises, we'll continue to move along. Would you like to close?
Redner 2
Sure. First of I wanna thank you, and I wanna thank all the witnesses. As everybody knows, I will always continue to work on any, policy that's comes before us and hopefully come to a a soft landing space for everyone. This bill is about making sure our compost system actually works the way California is expected to. And when something is labeled compostable, people should be able to trust that it will break down and not harm the the compost stream.
Right now, that's just not the reality, and the costs are being borne by our farmers, our composters, local governments, and rate pay payers. AB eighteen twelve provides clarity, protects compost quality, and supports the long term success of our organic recycling system. And, you know, I'm a farmer, so I'm very, very picky about my dirt. And I wanna make sure it's clean and that we're being able to use it so that it doesn't harm anyone. I know there's a a lot of cost involved, and it reminds me someone says, why don't you just get on the on the line again and just continue to hire more people to pick off what's off the if anyone's worked on one of those lines, they don't last very long on those lines trying to clean it up.
So I just wanna thank you today for coming. I wanna thank the committee. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, madam majority leader. Now this bill does have a due pass recommendation. And when a quorum is established, I'm sure you'll get a motion to
Redner 1
Thank you, Assembly Member Moseto. We are one republican short of a quorum.
Redner 1
I've text him, so hopefully he shows up. A sup oh, yes. You've got another bill.
Redner 2
Oh, thank you very much. I'll make it as quick as possible. Thank you very much, mister, mister chair and members. I'm here today to present twenty two sixteen a bill to expand the Delta Conservancy and protect the greater watershed. AB twenty two sixteen creates greater opportunities for projects that benefit the Delta by expanding the Delta Conservancy to fully include Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties.
Today, the Delta Conservancy only covers certain parts of these counties. The remaining portions are not part of a conservancy even though projects in this region still provide direct benefits to the Delta into the wet watershed. This expansion creates more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue its habitat conservation and sustainable agricultural efforts, such as the successful fish friendly farming program. These projects not only, are not only economically and environmentally beneficial to the Delta region, but they are a great example of multi benefit approach to conservation. Expanding the Delta Conservancy will create a holistic approach to conservation of this crucial ecosystem and expansive watershed.
With me today is Michael Jarrett on behalf of The Nature Conservancy and Lucas Frerichs on behalf of Yellow County. Thank you.
Redner 8
Good afternoon, chair and honorable members. Michael Jarrett with The Nature Conservancy. We're proud to sponsor AB twenty two sixteen, which would expand and update the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The Delta Conservancy has a proven track record of working with local communities to identify shared objectives and develop locally supported priority projects to provide statewide benefit. AB twenty two sixteen will expand the area that receives those benefits supporting larger watershed scale projects and new sources of funding.
Redner 32
AB 20, two sixteen expands the Delta Conservancy to the whole of existing counties it already serves, which has local support and would cover important areas of the state that aren't covered currently by a conservancy. Some of these areas have significant wildfire risk and have had not had access to the recent funding packages for conservancy wildfire resilience projects. In addition, a b twenty two sixteen would benefit the areas of the Delta Conservancy that they already serve, including clarifying the ability to fund on farm activities that contribute to wildlife habitat, expanding the types of climate resilience projects that the conservancy can fund, provide the conservancy authority to provide grants for workforce development and to tribal organizations consistent with other conservancies, and to support the funding of underserved groups by authorizing the conservancy to do advanced payments and cover indirect costs. AB twenty two sixteen would not affect the allocation of prop $4, but would better position the conservancy to support this vital region in future funding measures. This will lead to better conservation and and climate resilient outcomes while supporting, regional economic development and public recreation opportunities.
For these reasons, we urge your support of AB twenty two sixteen.
Redner 19
Mister chair and members, Lucas Ferriks, member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors here in support of AB twenty two sixteen. Wanna thank the majority leader for her authorship of this bill. While portions of Yolo County are contained within the boundaries of the Delta Conservancy, the entirety of our county and especially portions of the extended watersheds are not. So they do currently do not qualify to receive the same benefits as those contained within the conservancy boundaries. The lands in the Central Valley surrounding the Delta comprise part of the Delta's watershed.
Redner 34
Since 2021, the state of California and this legislature has increasingly focused on watershed scale planning and project implementation for state conservancies with watershed defined extensions of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancies. I just wanna thank the majority leader for her leadership on this measure and respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you for being so succinct. Any persons in this hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 7
Good afternoon, chair and members. Rica Mastro Donato with the Trust for Public Land in support.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anybody in opposition to this measure? Everybody loves the San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. Right. Questions, comments from committee members?
Seeing seeing none, we are still one short of a quorum. And if I have to say that again, we're gonna start calling names. But when the appropriate committee members arrive, I'm sure you'll get your motion. Would you like to close?
Redner 2
Oh, no. I respect the SBI vote, and I already heard miss the Sita would support
Redner 37
Good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. A b twenty four eighty one authorizes CalRecycle to make glass quality incentive payments or QIP, to glass processors for recycled glass used for the in state manufacturing of product such as fiberglass insulation. These payments will only be authorized to be made with the funds remaining after all the quick payments are made for recycled glass used in the manufacture of glass favorite beverage containers. For decades, California has set ambitious recycling targets, including the goal of achieving 80% recycling rate for beverage containers sold in the state.
To help meet this goal, these quick payments were established using funds from unredeemed CRV deposits collected when beverages are sold to improve the quality and marketability of glass collected for recycling. By paying entities that clean and sort recycled glass, the state helps cover the cost of processing recycled glass to the highest high standards suitable for manufacturing new products. These payments are all are so crucial to the sustained health of California's glass recycling program that in 2022, s b ten thirteen increased the amount allocated for the QIPP 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 annually. While s b ten thirteen made many important improvements to recycling in California, Some of its changes also had unanticipated consequences. Though the bill increased the QIPP by $5,000,000 annually, it also made recycled glass used for beverage containers the only end use eligible to receive QIPP.
This change has resulted in less than $8,500,000 being dispersed annually and the authorized increase to 15,000,000 being effectively unrealized. Our bill proposes to ensure that the 15,000,000 allocated annually for Quip will be more fully and efficiently used by authorizing CalRecycle to make Quip payments for recycled glass used in the manufacturing of products other than beverage containers. But crucially, a b twenty four eighty one only allows these payments to be made using using any leftover funds after the existing QIP payments for glass use in manufacturing beverage containers. This approach maintains California's prioritization of the use of recycled glass in beverage containers without putting other significant end users of recycled glass in the state at an insurmountable disadvantage. In this way, a b twenty four eighty one better supports glass recycling in California and helps to increase the amount of recycled glass used in making fiberglass insulation.
This will not only help support industries using recycled materials, but also lower the cost of insulation in the construction and weatherization of homes and other buildings. Here with me today to testify in support of a b twenty four eighty one are Melanie Law on behalf of North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste.
Redner 38
Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. I am Melanie Law representing the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, also known as NEMA, in support and as a sponsor of a b twenty four eighty one introduced by assembly member Soria. NEMA is the North American Trade Trade Association for fiberglass insulation. NEMA promotes energy efficiency and environmental stewardship through the use of fiberglass and encourages the safe production and use of these materials.
The fiberglass industry has deep rooted presence in California with three of the four US fiberglass manufacturers having facilities in the state. The fiberglass industry is the second largest user of recycled glass in California. Under state law, we are required to use at least 30% recycled content, but we consistently exceed that standard and strive to continue increasing recycled content to meet our environmental goals. Our main challenge to this goal is the availability of recycled glass. AB twenty four eighty one presents a simple fix to address the gap left in 2022 by s b ten thirteen.
While the legislation increased the funding for glass quality incentive payments from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 annually, it restricted eligibility exclusively to glass used for new beverage containers. QIP has historically been undersubscribed with only about half of the total allocated amount dispersed annually. This leaves millions of dollars in authorized recycling incentives sitting idle while glass processors face difficult economics. As a result of the changes in eligibility under s b ten thirteen, processors can no longer access QIP for the recycled glass purchased by fiberglass manufacturers. This has a direct impact on fiberglass manufacturers who have seen an estimated 15% increase in the recycle in the price of recycled glass.
Redner 26
AB twenty four eighty one provides a solution by restoring QIP eligibility for high quality recycled glass used in products like fiberglass insulation. To be clear, this bill respects and maintains priorities for glass beverage containers, and the QIP will continue to go to glass processors as usual. The QIP will only be opened for a second call if other uses if the funds remain after biannual disbursement for glass beverage containers. AB twenty four eighty one simply ensures that the funding already allocated for glass recycling is fully utilized. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an I vote on AB twenty four eighty one.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. I'm gonna stop you right there just for one second. Madam secretary, can we establish a quorum real quick?
Redner 4
Ellis present. Alanis? Connolly? Here. Connolly present.
Garcia? Present. Garcia present. Haney? Hart?
Hoover? Calra? Mosito? Here. Mosito present.
Matsuchi? Pellerin? Yep. Pellerin present. Schultz?
Present. Schultz present. Spur?
Redner 1
We also had a motion on the consent calendar by miss Macedo and seconded by mister Schultz. Can we call the roll on the consent calendar?
Redner 4
Brian I. Ellis? Aye. Ellis I. Alaniz?
Connolly? Aye. Connolly I. Garcia? Aye.
Garcia I. Haney? Hart? Hoover? Cholera, Macedo Aye.
Macedo, aye. Mertzuchi, Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz?
Redner 58
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste here in support of AB twenty four eighty one. We know that not all recovered glass can be remanufactured into new beverage containers. Fiberglass manufacturers play a critical role by providing a reliable end market for recycled glass that can't be used in container production. And since 1992, California laws required fiberglass sold into the state to include increasing levels of recycled glass, re import reinforcing this really important market.
Redner 40
But as recently as 2021, we, saw, according to CalRecycle fiberglass, manufacturers use more than a 180,000 tons of recycled glass. But since the passage of SB ten thirteen, we've seen that number drop in 2024 to about a 139,000 tons, highlighting this concerning trend of, using less less of this material. So a really key barrier has been the cost and difficulty of processing this glass to meet strict quality standards, which becomes even more demanding as more recycled content is used. And so we think using these unredeemed funds to offset these processing costs is an essential, use of these funds. So, for these reasons supporting this bill.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 20
Thank you, mister chair and members. Dawn Kabke on behalf of Strategic Materials and its parent company, Sabelco, largest glass recycler both in California and
Redner 6
Good afternoon. Jennifer Rowe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Knopf Insulation, a fiberglass manufacturer in Shasta Lake, California. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Is there nobody who would oppose this incredible measure?
Redner 1
See you now. Turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by miss Macedo, a second by missus Zubur. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 1
aye. We'll leave it on call. Thank you. Mister Gonzalez, come on down. Ready, sir?
Whenever you're ready.
Redner 42
Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna begin by saying, thank you again, sir, and to your staff. I know we spoke over the weekend extensively on this. I know this has been extremely important for you, and just wanna thank you again for taking the time to have that conversation. I know it took a lot of work, and I will absolutely gladly accept the the committee amendments today.
Before I begin, I know the committee amendments are significant, but I wanna give a little bit of background on that. The amendments that will go into print will streamline the legal review process, ensuring that if sequel lawsuits were to occur, it will be resolved within one year. The other piece of the bill that I have committed to work on on with the chair is around creating a series of best practices a job site must follow in addition to the other considerations already listed that will lead to presumptive negative declaration for new construction of a fire station. Combined, these efforts balance the scales ensuring essential fire stations move forward while protecting the environment. With that said, I'm pleased to present a b twenty one fifty two, which will streamline the construction of new fire stations throughout the state.
Firefighters, as we know, they are the backbone of our communities. They're the ones who run to burden buildings, save lives, who help our elderly family members, when they are when they fall, who provide emergency medical services, and, yes, we'll take a moment to hand a sticker out to a kid at a fire truck. Across our great state, calls have hit historic highs with firefighters responding to emergencies at unprecedented rates. And while call while call volume has surged, fire department infrastructure hasn't exactly been able to keep up. This bill addresses two issues at once.
Redner 37
First, the conditions our witnesses will talk about today about fire stations are so infested with mold that firefighters can't safely sleep there. And every summer, I make it an obligation and a goal and a duty and a responsibility, to do fire station visits in my district to to just check on the firefighters that are there during both shifts. And these are one of the many issues that they have spoken to me about, that especially stations that were built in the nineteen hundreds that are too small for modern equipment, and are double or triple staffed to ensure their response times are met. At the same time, clog volume has skyrocketed. In 1969, just over a 100,000 incidents, incidents required a fire department response.
Redner 42
In 2023, that number was 504,000. And while that, mirrors population growth in places like Los Angeles, here's the disconnect. In 1960, Los Angeles fire department had a 112 stations serving 2,500,000 residents. Today, it has only a 106 fire stations serving 3,900,000 residents. So LA has six fewer stations to serve 1,400,000 of its residents.
So, yes, demand has gone up. Coverage has not. LAFD needs 62 new fire stations and 4,000 new firefighters. And here's where things get a little frustrating for us. The last time LAFD tried to build a new station, specifically in Van Nuys, they did everything right, and still a group of residents sued under CEQUA not once but twice to prevent these fire stations from being built.
That project was delayed for two years, putting thousands of lives at risk and cost taxpayers 1,900,000.0 reports and legal fees just to end up exactly where it started, which was approved. And so as brave firefighters continue to risk their lives to be there when we need them, I think it's time for us to have their backs and also answer that call. Here to support the bill and give us an on the ground perspective are the Dougs. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and Doug Coates, president of United Firefighters Los Angeles Local one twelve. Take it away.
Redner 39
Alright. Well, good good afternoon, mister chair and the members of the committee. My name is Doug Coats, and I'm a firefighter engineer for the city of LA, and I'm proud to serve as the president of the United Firefighters of LA City Local one twelve. As the park as the fire department with the largest city in California and the second largest city in the nation, we're proud of the work we do every day and keep our community and citizens safe. As the first on scene for every emergency, the firefighters of city of Los Angeles provide unparalleled service and protection for every citizen.
Redner 43
However, no matter the quality of training and work or how quickly we leave the station, there are certain facts that we cannot escape, mainly the critical shortages of both firefighters and fire stations across our fire department. A recent study done by the International Association of Firefighters found that in order for us to effectively meet the community, that the LAFD would need 62 fire stations. 62 more fire stations, and right now, we have a 106. According to this analyst, the city of LA does not have a fire station close enough to meet their goal of four minutes response times, leaving our residents without rapid public safety, and they deserve much more. In response to this urgent need, we at Local one twelve pushed our own local ballot measure that will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funding for new fire station construction.
But even with this funding, we faced the long delays and numerous hurdles in the already long and costly process. The most telling example is the construction of Fire Station 39, which delayed by several several several years as a result of CEQUA and the court challenges and cost us over a million dollars. In the city of LA, we have half the fire department we need to to properly serve our community. With our ballot measure passes and the monies available, we cannot afford years of long delays in construction of public safety and infrastructure, both for the safety of our community and the health of our members. AB twenty one fifty two will help expedite the construction of our fire station, saving time and resources while ensuring that facilities will be built with union labor in an environmentally sound manner.
And I'm asking you to support this bill. Just so everybody knows here, we've spent the firefighters of our own money has spent our own money to help serve our community. We spent a million dollars already of firefighter money, just so you guys know. Thank you.
Redner 52
Thank you, mister chair and members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We're pleased to support and cosponsor AB twenty one fifty two and would like to thank the chair and the committee for working with us on this measure. As president Coates noted, we have many jurisdictions across the state that are behind in investment and infrastructure, given the increasing call volume, that many of our, fire agencies experience. This bill will help ensure the fire stations can be built efficiently and effectively while, while stretching, scarce local resources.
Redner 45
Station construction will improve response, in communities across the state, but also improve the health and safety of our members. New stations bring significant benefits to our membership. They are designed, the facilities are designed, and living spaces are designed with health and safety in mind, more accommodating of all members of the fire service, also more controlling of light and other things that facilitate the health and safety of our members. Second, there's better storage for our personal protective equipment. Firefighters continually are going out to scenes and often have, the residual, emissions from all types of, experiences and different fires, and that equipment can also, off gas and risk our members.
New stations have better ways to house, that PPE and keep it safe and separated from the firefighters. And lastly, many new facilities have extractors or cleaning for PPE on-site, another thing that will help facilitate the health and safety of of our members. We really appreciate the work on this bill. Look forward to continuing to collaborate and streamline station construction. And for those reasons, we would ask for your aye vote.
Thank you.
Redner 1
You so much, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 14
Mister chair and members, Mike West on behalf of the state building and construction trades council of California in support.
Redner 46
afternoon, chair members. My name is Felipe Fuentes, and I'm here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. Let me just begin by saying that we absolutely appreciate the author's intent here. AGC generally supports CEQA exemptions because they're an important tool to help agencies deliver critical infrastructure faster, reduce delays, and control costs. And we absolutely support the goal of building fire stations quickly in Los Angeles in particular, my old home.
Our concern concerns with the bill is not the exemption. It's how the exemption is structured. The bill conditions CEQUA relief on a mandatory with a mandatory project labor agreement for any contract over $50,000. That threshold is far below industry norms. PLAs are typically used on large, complex, multi trade projects, not small, routine, or single trade work.
At $50,000, this requirement would apply to minor upgrades, maintenance work, and small construction scopes. That creates a mismatch between the purpose of a CEQA exemption and the effect of this bill. CEQA exemptions are intended to speed projects up, but a PLA mandate at this level can reduce bidder participation, increase administrative burdens, and ultimately slow delivery. It also removes local agency discretion. Fire agencies are best positioned to determine when the PLA makes sense based on a project size and complexity.
Redner 49
This bill replaces that judgment with a one size fits all mandate. And importantly, the impacts will fall hardest on small and rural fire agencies who rely on local contractors that may not be able to absorb PLA requirements on a small job. That means fewer bidders, higher costs, and delays in communities that already face elevated fire risk. We also note that the committee analysis indicates that most fire station projects already move forward under existing CEQA pathways without significant delay or litigation. So the question becomes, why tie a broad labor mandate to a problem that is not widely demonstrated?
Redner 46
Our bottom line is that we support the goal of streamlining projects like these, but that streamlining must be neutral and broadly available, not conditioned on a mandate that restricts competition and may slow projects down. And for those reasons, the associate general contractors of California respectfully oppose this measure.
Redner 15
Good afternoon. Kim Delfino, representing Defenders of Wildlife in the Sonoma Land Trust. My issue is completely different, and I will just say that, hopefully, we'll be more easily remedied. The reason why we're up here is that, the way that this bill has been drafted, that it has a provision so there's been a lot of CEQA exemptions. And in the CEQA exemptions that have been given out, we normally have a list of various types of lands that if you put a project on top of it, you don't get the CEQA exemption.
And this bill has that, and we thank the author for that and the sponsors. And we actually think that, you know, we wanna see streamlining going on for for fire, for fire stations, of course. But the bill added a provision that said that a lead agency can only may only rely on state and federally generated science and doesn't has to doesn't and may not ask for any surveys of the site. This is a departure from how we normally are doing these CEQA exemptions, SB 35, SB four twenty three. Local governments are asking sometimes for folks to go out and at least take a look at the site to make sure that there's no habitat out there.
Redner 25
And Sonoma Land Trust is an example where they've been given funding by the state to actually carry out a scientific review for wildlife connectivity, and they would you know, my clients and others would like to be able to use that data, as part of the decision making process as to whether you get a NAG deck, which sounds like that's the direction that this bill might be going in, or the judicial streamlining provision. So, we've been in conversation with the author's office. We're hoping that this small issue gets resolved because even though it's in this one bill, our experience has been that when we start to see, an erosion of these types of standards associated with exemptions, they just get carried out in the next bill and the next bill and the next bill, we'd like to just try to address that, and we hope that that can be done. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Redner 1
Assembly members, Richard Markison on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. Like the previous witness, we're concerned that the next sequel bill will also include a PLA mandate. We're strongly opposed because of that. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Redner 1
will now turn it back to members of the dais. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Mister Gonzalez, would you like to close?
Redner 42
Thank you. Mister chair, I know we talked about some of this over the weekend, and and we are gonna work on that. We did receive the the opposition letter very late on Friday, so we will continue to go through that. But there are some pieces that need to that will be fixed, need to be addressed. But in the day, we can't say no to these fire stations.
As it was mentioned, Los Angeles is is obviously on the teetering edge of that, and we need to do everything that we can to make sure that we cater to the communities, especially the ones who need it the most, who live in these denser parts of the area, who live in these areas that also don't have it but need the support and are the first ones to say, well, where were the firefighters? And they put their finger on you guys, and they blame you when the reality is that we need to be able to provide that infrastructure and research. So for us, the this bill is about something, about something that's simple and making sure that firefighters can do their job safely and effectively. Right now, the demand is growing. The infrastructure is aging, and the gap between the two is getting harder to ignore.
We can either keep delaying critical projects or we can be honest about the consequences of that delay. Because when a fire station, just a fire station, is held up, it's not just paperwork that's stalled. It's response times. It's emergency care. It's lives.
It's you. It's me. It's everyone in this room. So with that, mister chair, I respectfully ask your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister Gonzalez. This bill has a do rec a do pass recommendation, by me. I wanna thank the author for working with us on it. It it is not an exemption, but it is a provides a level of certainty through the streamlining process so that we can predict costs and predict timelines, and I think we can even do slightly better. And so you have my commitment, our committee's commitment to work through the approach process to see if we can get this in final form.
Additionally, it was really important to me to make sure that this didn't just apply to my home in Los Angeles. Although it is a clear need and and and evident, I think the ability to build stations quickly across the state for local jurisdictions is important and something that this committee wanted to prioritize. Do we have a motion on this measure?
Redner 1
Missus Zabur and a second by miss Pelerin. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 4
Motion is due passed as amended to emergency management committee. Brian?
Redner 4
Brian I. Ellis? Aye. Ellis I. Alaniz?
Connolly? Aye. Connolly I. Garcia? Aye.
Garcia I. Haney? Mhmm. Hoover? Calra, Macedo, Matsuchi, Pelrin, I.
Pelrin, I. Schultz, Zibar, Zibar, I.
Redner 1
This is assembly member Alvarez here. I do not see him. Assembly member Addis. San Luis Obispo, come on down.
Redner 24
Well, thank you. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to your staff in particular. We're here and to all of the advocates and all of the committee members. I'm here to present a b fifteen thirty six, the Save Our Shores Act, which protects California's thriving coastline and communities and economy from the threat of dirty offshore oil and gas activity. And I wanna thank your staff because we, they gave us amendments, and I do accept those amendments as outlined in the committee analysis.
So as you know and everyone on this committee, I think, knows that California's coastal economy is essential to our state's prosperity, and it's particularly the case along the Central Coast where I would say everyone on this committee either lives, vacations, or has family and friends. And the primary reason that everyone on this committee and many people in this legislature, visit the Central Coast is because of the pristine and unrivaled beauty in that part of California. But it's not the only place that we have such a pristine coast. The North Coast, you know, North Of The Bay Area is also very much an untouched coastline, and much of California's coast is beautiful, and people come from all over the world to see it. And it's not by accident.
That's really happened because of people who have started firm on protecting and promoting our environment, our coastal way of life, and our ocean based economy. People that we all know, like secretary Panetta, who led the coalition of the Monterey Bay, led the creation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, two Chumash tribal leaders who worked for over a decade to create the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, and thousands of local champions who have fought for decades to protect our coastline. And the truth is that California's ocean based economy generates between 42 and $51,000,000,000 annually and employs more than half a million people, almost 10 times the economic benefit of offshore oil drilling, and 40% of that is in the visitors visitor serving sector. So in essence, the way that our coasts benefit the California economy is through our ocean ecosystem and our ocean economics. We cannot keep doing this, though, if offshore oil disasters kill our wildlife and soil our shores like they did in California's largest oil spill in 1969 and, again, just eleven years ago with the Refugio spill in 2015.
That spill alone cost hundreds of millions of dollars due to shutting down fisheries, harming marine mammals, and halting visitor serving businesses. So despite the miniscule reward of offshore oil drilling, the Trump administration for the first time in over forty years as a federal administration is proposing to open up new drilling. Our Central Coast Caucus, which some of your members are also members of the Central Coast Caucus, has submitted no less than four letters opposing the move to open up off shore oil drilling across California's coastline, but we feel like, we need to do more. So in order to, create more action, we have a a b fifteen thirty six that would do a number of things. First, when a company attempts to restart a pipeline, the bill will require a sixty day public comment period, ensure that projects that receive an exemption are subject to CEQA, require best available technology to restart operations, and ensure that the most dangerous pipelines, those that have spilled more than 10,000 gallons of oil, will be decommissioned.
And second, a b fifteen thirty six will mandate operators to prepare detailed leak detection and response plans for any new coastal oil infrastructure, building in and this would build in critical safety measures from day one. So we've got two witnesses here to testify, Christina Skringe from, California Climate Policy Director at the Center for Biological Diversey's Climate Law Institute and doctor Pasha Madhavi, associate professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Redner 34
Thank you. Good afternoon. Christina Skarinj with the Center for Biological Diversity, proud cosponsor of AB fifteen thirty six. This is a bill to protect California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy, our unique biodiversity, communities, and cultures from yet another devastating oil spill. The feds plan to expand drilling off our coast even as they drop bonding guardrails and hundreds of millions from coastal protection and environmental cleanup.
Redner 50
California has had many pipeline failures, 16 since 2010 have spilled more than 10,000 gallons of oil. Three major spills dumped more than fill 4,000,000 gallons, impacting more than 1,500 square miles, including marine protected areas and 200 miles of beaches, closing fisheries and killing wildlife. The 2015 spill on Chumash Lands and the 2021 spill on Tongva Lands contaminated 1,500 acres of coastline, 2,200 acres of ocean habitat, and closed fisheries and state parks costing the state millions, including more than 200,000,000 in cleanup and damages and 3,900,000.0 in lost recreational value. The federal plan could bring another 1,900,000 gallons to pollute our coast. This bill strengthens state pipeline safety standards and public process.
It emphasizes prevention, requires independent analysis versus self reporting, and mandates best available technology. It demands safety before reactivating those that caused major spills. It requires leak detection and response plans for new infrastructure and forestall repeated disasters by requiring abandonment and restoration where the worst already occurred. California's multibillion dollar coastal economy enjoys over 150,000,000 visitors every year. Nearly 600,000 jobs rely on clean beaches and a healthy ocean.
Coastal tourism and recreation are the major drivers of GDP and employment for our marine economy. Oil spills devastate homes, businesses, ecosystems, communities, and livelihoods, so this is about fiscal responsibility. Californians have for decades overwhelmingly opposed offshore drilling, so we urge you to vote yes to protect against these foreseeable risks to all we hold dear. Thank you.
Redner 25
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Pasha Madhavi. I'm an associate professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara. I'm also the director of the energy governance and political economy lab.
I have over twenty years experience working on energy policy, specifically in the oil and gas industry. I'm here today in support of AB fifteen thirty six. I believe this bill will protect, California's coastal economies, which impacts, of course, nearly 600,000 jobs, but compare that to 19,733 jobs in California's oil and gas sector or just 0.1% of all wage earning workers in California based on data from the BLS in 2025. This bill will also create high quality jobs and oil asset decommissioning. My research shows that such programs are highly supported by households and oil communities with 90% support for policies for decommissioning oil infrastructure.
Redner 44
And our findings show high awareness about oil and gas issues, further justifying the bill's requirements for public comment. A separate study we conducted with the UCSB, Community Labor Center shows that pipeline decommissioning is a significant near term employment opportunity for displaced oil and gas workers. A report on decommissioning pipelines from the Point Arguello offshore platforms shows the generation of 20.5 jobs per one mile of offshore and landfall pipeline decommissioned over a two year period. What this bill will not do is raise gasoline prices. Gas prices are largely a function of crude oil prices.
Redner 25
These are set by global markets that account for worldwide oil consumption of 106,000,000 barrels per day. Even the rosiest scenario for unmitigated new oil production offshore, California would be 229,168 barrels per day, which would not be produced until 2040, and only account for 0.22% of global oil production. In other words, a drop in the bucket, not enough to move oil prices. This bill would also not force consumers to increase reliance on high cost and high carbon imported crude oil. That's because California's oil is more carbon intensive than oil imported to the state.
And on a per barrel basis, imports for The Middle East and South America are less expensive to produce and ship to California than oil produced offshore California. Thank you for your time, and I urge the, committee to vote yes on a b fifteen thirty six. Thank you so much.
Redner 38
I guess I'm first. Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network in support. Thank you.
Redner 52
Victoria Vogden Tejeda with Center for Biological Diversity registering support for the following, Environmental Defense Center, three fifty Bay Area Action, Active San Gabriel Valley, Center for Environmental Health, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Santa Barbara Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Food and Water Watch, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, os Ocean Conservation Research, San Diego three fifty, Save Our Shores, and Santa Cruz County Climate Action Network. Thank you.
Redner 53
Good afternoon. Vanessa Flores on behalf of Clean and Healthy California in support.
Redner 3
Doctor Pam O'Dell of Climate Action California and three fifty Sacramento.
Redner 7
Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. In support.
Redner 55
And Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, pleased to be in support. Thank you.
Redner 21
Mister chair and members, Paul Diero with the Western States Petroleum Association. First and foremost, my apologies. We do not have a letter in the analysis or to the committee yet, and I apologize to the author as well. We we do have a lot of concerns about the bill. Primarily, there are some loose definitions, undefined terms, and numerical thresholds that seem somewhat arbitrary.
Redner 56
Our next step is to meet with the author and and and, go through those. I will not take any more of the committee's time. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Are there any other persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Is there anybody who would like to submit a late letter in this hearing room? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Miss Pellerin.
Redner 48
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I remember growing up in Santa Barbara County and going out to the beach and coming back with just tar, stuck to the bottom of my feet and on all of our beach blankets and everything was horrible. And we just cannot let this continue to happen, and we have to stop this offshore oil recovery ounce of effort that we have. And I really appreciate the contents of this bill, and I'd be honored to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 16
thank you. I want to, first address the impacts of offshore drilling and production. There are about 70,000 barrels per year that wash up onshore from natural seeps. And when you drill and produce from these formations, you reduce formation pressure, which allows those oil seeps not to produce. To address carbon intensity from production from third world countries, when these ships bring in this million barrels a day of crude into California, they run internal combustion engines, burn number six fuel oil, which is the the the lighter fraction of asphalt.
Redner 7
And when they run, when they produce, and burn this number six fuel oil, they put out polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which are phenanthrocines, benzopyrene, the heavy molecular ends, which are considered hazardous by the EPA. So the carbon intensity that you quoted is wrong. I'd like to, talk about pipelines. Pipelines are very regulated, and and they have extreme pressure regulations. They are X rayed.
They are tested, and we need them desperately because if we do increase production because of our world supply shortage, we can't take them out of service. We're gonna need them. I would also like to say that oil and gas in California is 8% of our GDP, but it's the first 8%. But it because if we can't get diesel to our trucks and food to our grocery stores, we're out of business. I strongly oppose this bill because because we we need pipelines.
We need pipeline infrastructure. We certainly need regulation. Not opposed to that whatsoever, but we need we need, common sense. So thank you very much. Mister chair, may I respond?
Redner 1
Not if a question wasn't asked of you. Thanks. Mister Schultz might ask you one, though.
Redner 29
my mind. I'd love to know if either of the witnesses have a response to the vice chair's question.
Redner 25
Thank you, mister chair. So I'd I'd respond, I mean, to this point about greenhouse gas intensity and carbon intensity. The numbers I quoted are from from the California Air Resources Board. So if you have a problem with their numbers, I suggest you take it up with them. Secondly, I cross validated those with petroleum engineering, back numbers from oil climate intensity plus or OCI plus from the Rocky Mountain Institute.
I'm sorry. Oil climate index plus gas. Those are greenhouse gas intensities that factor in some of the issues that you raised, in particular shipping, as well as, methane intensity and other numbers. So that's OCI plus, but the numbers that, I'm mentioning before from from CARB.
Redner 29
Thank you. The only other thing I would add, mister chair, is appreciate the author for bringing the bill forward. Would love to be added as a coauthor. Has a motion been made, mister chair?
Redner 1
There has not. Move the bill. Most of my mister Sulkes. Second by miss Pellerin. Any other questions, comments by committee committee members?
Miss Addis, would you like to close?
Redner 24
Yes. Thank you so much, chair. I I would just, I think maybe just simplify a little the bill a little bit. It's really about improving the public process so that local communities have a voice and a choice in improving public's pipeline safety requirements and regulations. So I think we do have commonality there when it comes to improving regulations.
And I do believe that together, all of us, every single person here in this room that loves to visit the coast, whether it's Central Coast where I get to live or the North Coast or the South Coast, but that together, we can keep our greatest asset thriving in California. And with that, I respectfully request your vote.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Can you add me as a coauthor as well?
Redner 4
Connolly, I. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, I. Haney, Hart, Hoover, Calra, Mesito, Marucci Aye.
Marucci I.
Redner 39
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm delighted to be with you today to present 1849. I'd like to focus on the bill number eighteen forty nine. What happened in 1849 was a gold rush. Right?
It was sort of the future of California. Well, likewise, this bill represents kind of the future of energy. Just serendipity, actually, that we got that that number. So in any way, a B1849 directs the California Air Resources Board to con oh, I would we will conduct accept the committee's amendments and thank the committee for its work on the bill. So, 1849 directs CARB to conduct a study on the need for decarbonized gas fuels in hard to electrify sectors and for grid reliability.
California
Redner 54
made immense progress in decarbonization over the past quarter century, and we are a global leader in clean and sustainable power development. Renewable sources of power are more abundant than ever, and both public and private entities continue to find innovative ways to electrify and move towards our climate goals. However, we've gotta accept the reality that you can't electrify everything, and that's what this bill is about. Currently, California's power grid still relies on natural gas and diesel through peak peaker plants and backup generators to supply power during periods of peak electricity demand. At the same time, industries such as cement and glass manufacturing, they rely on high heat combustion processes that are difficult to electrify, which is why they continue to use fossil fuels.
Redner 39
Trying to electrify these sectors would significantly strain the grid and remain financially infeasible in the near term. If we wanna achieve California's climate goals of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, we need solutions that are practical and implementable at scale. Decarbonized gaseous fuels may offer that pathway. They could replace fossil fuel use in these hard to electrify sectors like cement and glass manufacturing, while also help stabilizing the grid by replacing fossil fuels in industrial processes, peaker plants, and backup generators as I spoke about. The issue is that we don't have an understanding of the need for decarbonized fuel and then the feasibility of a transition.
So this is really a study bill. AB eighteen forty nine will provide the necessary information on if and how decarbonized gaseous fuels will fit into our energy future future. With me today is Katrina Fritz of the California Hydrogen Business Council and Julia Levin of Bioenergy Association of California, who'll explain a bit more just about decarbonized gaseous fuels and their potential in our state. Thanks, turn it over to Katrina first. Please.
Redner 12
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Katrina Fritz, president and CEO of the California Hydrogen Business Council, and we're proud to cosponsor AB eighteen forty nine. We must decarbonize sectors that cannot easily be electrified. These sectors account for more than a quarter of California's total greenhouse gas emissions, and meeting our air quality and climate goals will require reliable, affordable electricity as well as solutions for hard to abate areas such as heavy industry and long duration seasonal energy storage.
Redner 24
In a moment of market uncertainty, a b in 1849 sends a clear signal. California remains committed to scaling clean fuels, supporting jobs, and maintaining air quality, energy reliability, and resilience. Our member companies are already investing in these solutions here in California, supporting jobs in manufacturing, construction, project development, and operations. These are durable, well paying jobs often in rural and industrial communities that need them most. But today, these investments are increasingly at risk.
Redner 12
Ongoing federal uncertainty under the Trump administration is making it harder for companies to plan, finance, and deploy projects at scale. For emerging industries like hydrogen, that uncertainty can stall momentum at a critical moment. AB eighteen forty nine provides a path forward. This bill establishes a comprehensive data driven assessment of demand for decarbonized gaseous fuels across sectors which California currently lacks. That analysis is essential for infrastructure planning, capital investment, and market development.
This technology neutral approach avoids prematurely defining eligible fuels and can provide a necessary foundation to reach California's objective of deep decarbonization over time. Thank you.
Redner 31
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Julia Levin with the Bioenergy Association of California. AB eighteen forty nine takes an important step in meeting the state's climate goals by requiring an assessment of the need for decarbonized gaseous fuels, both in the electricity sector and in hard to electrify sectors. It does not require or incentivize any particular procurement. It is a study bill, no more and no less.
But the assessment that it requires is an essential step in decarbonizing these really stubborn, hard to abate sectors. Claims that will accelerate or incentivize any particular outcomes are not accurate. AB eighteen forty nine is also consistent with the air board's climate change scoping plan and multiple plans released by the California Energy Commission, including the integrated energy policy report and the energy commission study on firm power. The 2022 climate change scoping plan, in particular, calls specifically for an increase both in low carbon hydrogen and in biomethane and other forms of biogas as a way to provide electricity reliability, seasonal storage for the electricity sector, and to decarbonize hard to electrify sectors. So not only is AB eighteen forty nine consistent with both of these plans, it is an essential step to decarbonizing these sectors.
For all these reasons, we respectfully urge an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Are there persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 41
Good afternoon. Alfredo Dorado on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition in support.
Redner 55
Hello. Kealey Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.
Redner 11
Good afternoon, mister chair. Jackie on behalf of Coalition for Renewal Natural Gas in support.
Redner 16
Good afternoon. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association in support.
Redner 1
Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Come on down. Two minutes apiece.
Redner 52
Thank you, chair Brian and members. I'm Victoria Bogdan Tejeda with the Center for Biological Diversity opposing eighteen forty nine along with 22 other groups. Our main concerns are as follows. First, under the bill, CARB must assess how to accelerate and incentivize decarbonized gaseous fuels. While this may sound appealing, the bill explicitly favors problematic fuels, mainly biomethane and hydrogen, both of which are costly and polluting.
And by biasing the assessment towards these fuels, CARB cannot be objective. Ultimately, if these fuels are as good as the bill would make them out to be, other ongoing agency processes, which I will mention in a second, will bear that out. Second, to build duplicates and possibly conflicts with ongoing state efforts. For example, CARB is already assessing decarbonization within the scoping plan. Then there is SB ten seventy five from 2022 directing agencies to study the role hydrogen could play in the state.
Redner 22
And electric reliability, another topic in the bill, is subject of ongoing PUC and CEC proceedings. Third, the bill uses the word incentive four times even though there is no evidence that incentives are needed or useful. For example, the PUC just issued the decision to close out the Biomet energy tariff, a type of incentive for being underused and costly. The bill analysis recognizes that there are incentives worked into the assessment. Finally, eighteen forty nine omits any consideration of climate, air quality, and public health impacts, meaning the bill focuses on accelerating and incentivizing fuels without considering what impacts that could have.
Redner 52
Thus, we see no benefit to creating a new narrow analysis, particularly when other agencies are already working on decarbonization goals. In fact, this bill could hamper or conflict with those ongoing agency efforts. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.
Redner 49
Good afternoon, chair and members. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment here in opposition to this measure. In addition to the excellent points just raised by the Center for Biological Diversity, I have to say this isn't an unknown universe of fuels that we're talking about. We've studied and know the range of fuels that would fall under this definition in the bill pretty well. Many of these fuels enable poor land use practices, unsustainable things, things that run really counter to our climate goals in general, and almost all of them have negative health benefits and negative health impacts through increased air pollution to the communities near those production facilities, are overwhelmingly communities of color that are already overburdened by pollution.
So for those reasons, in addition to those mentioned by CBD, we urge your opposition. Thank you.
Redner 50
Good afternoon. I've been asked to register opposition for Sunflower Alliance, Little Manila Rising, Forest Forever, Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, Biofuel Watch, Food and Water Watch, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Sonoma County Climate Activist Network. Thank you.
Redner 23
Michael Hapas with California's hands of waste in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 12
And Jamie Miner, sorry, actually in support on behalf of Monterey One. I missed that line. Sorry.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Mister Connolly.
Redner 31
The bill doesn't provide any definitions. We thought it was important to define
Redner 27
We thought it was more important to define the scope of the problem first, and then the legislature once you know how much low carbon gas will be needed in the future, then the legislature can decide what forms of low carbon gas it wants to see to address that hole, basically. But we thought the first step is to define the problem, which is we're still using a lot of carbon intensive fossil fuel gas. And so we're asked the bill asked the air board to figure out how much will the ongoing need be for gas, And then the legislature can decide, okay. Now that we know the magnitude of the problem, what gaseous fuels will we allow to fix the problem? So the bill, we thought it was premature to try to define what would be eligible when we don't know how big the problem is.
Redner 1
have a motion by miss Macedo. Second. Second by mister Schultz. Miss mister Marisucci.
Redner 63
I I just wanna follow-up. Mister Connolly, if you wanna define the scope of the problem, who is going to be defining decarbonized gaseous fuels?
Redner 31
That would be up to the legislature once the air board knows how much is the long term need for low carbon gaseous fuels. I mean, hopefully, a lot will be electrified. Other fuels can provide that need, but we don't we really don't know the magnitude.
Redner 63
But but you're you're saying it's up to the legislature to define decarbonized gaseous fuels, but it currently is not defined in the bill?
Redner 31
Because we think trying to define it before we know the scope of the problem, it would make more sense to to figure out what is the scope of the problem and then define how to fix it.
Redner 63
But how are we supposed to define the scope of the problem if we don't know what we're talking about?
Redner 31
We know what we're talking about now. So this is from the 2022 climate change scoping plan. So we know that hard to electrify end uses now are causing 15% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, and continued fossil fuel use in the electricity sector is another 20% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. What we what the air board needs to do is figure out how much of that can be electrified going forward, and then what were what will be the remaining gas use. And once we know what the remaining gas use will be, then it could come back to the legislature to decide how to address that, how to decarbonize that.
Redner 1
Not if he didn't ask a question. Okay. Miss Pappin, would you like to close?
Redner 39
I would. I respect your request and I vote. This is a study bill, and let's find out. Let's find out what can't be electrified, and let's see how we deal with it. So with that, request a I vote.
Thank you, sir.
Redner 1
We have a motion by miss Macedo, a second by mister Schultz. This is a due pass reco. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?
Redner 4
Connolly not voting. Garcia? Aye. Garcia I. Haney?
Hart? Aye. Hart aye. Hoover? Welcome.
Cholera? Macedo? Aye. Macedo aye. Mereducci?
Not voting. Mereducci not voting. Pellerin? Schultz?
Redner 1
Mister Alvarez. I'm sorry. I can't use my welcome to the neighborhood joke.
Redner 64
mister chair and committee members. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you and present Assembly Bill seventeen thirty two, the Student and Faculty Housing Opportunity Act. I wanna begin my testimony by thanking the chair first for the work and the team his team for the work on the analysis on the bill today and the work over the last couple of weeks. Thank you very much and accepting the committee amendments that are before you today as well. That was a lot of work that was put into that, and so I appreciate that.
I also wanna, thank the individuals who you'll hear from in a second who represent, the very best of California, the people who we I who I know I wake up every day in this job hoping to support, which is our students in California. This bill is about supporting our students first and foremost. California is home to the greatest public university system in the world. I think we can, say that and not be challenged on that. Whether it's the UC system, the CSU system, our community college system, those are the on ramps.
Redner 51
They certainly were for me and for many people that I know to path me into the middle class and into opportunities that have really opened up the doors to to careers and to a better life. Unfortunately, students much even more than even during my time are having with to deal with some pretty significant difficulties when it comes to the cost of housing. The truth is that we are failing students who are walking through those doors of opportunities that they find on college campuses because many of them cannot find a place to actually put a roof over their head or to sleep at night. The numbers from various sources, whether it was PPIC or others, indicate that UC students, almost 50% of them, it costs more to live than to actually attend college. More than 50% of CSU students are paying more for housing than they are to attend college.
Redner 64
And the same is true for community college students where about 70% of community college students are paying more to attend college than to, sorry, to live than to actually attend college and get their education. So we've heard the story. Students are sleeping in cars, on parking lots. We've made it easier for that to occur through legislative, efforts. They're couch surfing.
They're ultimately, many of them, the the sad truth is that they are dropping out because they just cannot afford to stay housed and also be enrolled at the same time. So we have also seen campuses issue enrollment deferrals due to the simple fact that they do not have enough housing even though there is a lot of demand for students to attend our colleges and university. The crisis is also impacting faculty and employees as our faculty as our university segments are looking to, attract faculty has become a crisis for them as well. At the same time, UC, CSU, and community college campuses hold land, and in many cases, have been working for years to approve plans. They have studied it.
They have approved development, opportunities through rigorous institutional review on where to build housing. But current law allows, private colleges and universities to access streamlining within the California Environmental Quality Act, but that is not an opportunity that's available to public institutions, to universities and colleges. So they are at a disadvantage when it comes to our private, colleges and universities. So AB seventeen thirty two focuses explicitly on closing that gap. By expanding existing streamlining, this bill ensures that housing projects at our public campuses can qualify for the same streamlined sequel review already available to comparable infill development.
It has the same safeguards, the same environmental standards, and this creates that clear pathway. This bill is being led, and I'm proud to say that by students with support from the Student Homes Coalition and the University of California Student Association. It's also supported by the, University of California California School Employees Association and recently the California Faculty Association, many, many others. Every semester that we delay a semester from housing a student, a student then has a difficult choice to make. And so I'm hopeful that this bill, while, the analysis identifies you know, is is quite, narrow, I hope to be very significant for a lot of students in California.
So with that, I'd
Redner 13
you. Good afternoon, chair Brian and members of the committee. Tyler Aguilar here on behalf of the University of California. UC and its 10 campuses are pleased to stand in strong support of a b seventeen thirty two. We thank Assemblyman Alvarez for his leadership on this issue.
California's housing crisis is a reality that, creates significant challenges for our campus community and for students. This instability translates into a struggle to balance academic success with the basic need for shelter disproportionately impacting low income, first gen, and Pell eligible students. Student housing remains a top priority at the UC system. And, since 2011, UC has added nearly 46,000 beds to support our growth our growing student population, housing approximately 41% of students in UC housing as compared to 32% in 2011. To further increase housing inventory, more than 13,000 new beds are in development across 14 projects now.
Redner 42
And the twenty twenty five, twenty thirty one UC capital financial plan includes an additional 8,000 beds with identified funding and then 7,000 beds in early planning. These projects, represent not just the physical expansion of UC, a commitment to improving the student experience overall. Simply put, AB seventeen thirty two will help the university build this housing faster, more efficiently, and stretch limited financial capacity further. By providing a clear streamlined pathway for approval, this bill allows us to better meet the urgent needs of our students, faculty, and staff without the cost and delay often associated with the CEQA process itself along with any subsequent CEQA litigation. Importantly, the streamlining does not sacrifice our commitment to environmental or social responsibility.
Redner 13
These projects are amongst, the most environmentally friendly in the state. And furthermore, a b seventeen thirty two maintains high labor standards, including prevailing wage and incorporates modernized tribal cross, consultation procedures. By streamlining CEQA for public higher ed projects, we can accelerate the construction of housing for students that our campus, communities urgently need. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 26
Hello, chair Brian and members of the committee. My name is Kai Wang. I'm a first year political science major at UC Davis and a colocal affairs legislative director of our a c ASUCD lobby corps. Today, here as part of the UC Student Association, which represents over 230,000 students across the state, I wanna make the case that housing is what makes the pursuit of education even possible. Right now, California's public higher education system does simply does not have the housing capacity for the students who need it.
I myself am waitlisted for on campus on campus housing and have no idea where I will be living next year, But my situation is far from unique. Across the UC system, only 38% of students have access to on campus housing, and over a 100,000 students identify as housing insecure or unhoused. The implications of this are clear. Students experiencing housing insecurity face poor physical health, diminished mental well-being, and poor academic outcomes. For students, access to housing will never be an afterthought.
Redner 20
It is whether we can meaningfully engage with our education at all. AB seventeen thirty two would directly address this issue by removing the bottleneck of sequel litigation that currently hinders the product production of on campus housing. This bill is not only an investment into the future generation of students and leaders, but is also a catalyst for making higher education truly accessible for all. Higher education should be opening doors, not leaving students searching for one. For these reasons, we, as students of the UCSA, respectfully request your I vote on a b seventeen thirty two to push for a solution to the housing insecurity crisis that plagues public higher education in California.
Redner 1
Well done. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 60
Good afternoon, chair and members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Combs Coalition in strong support as a proud sponsor.
Redner 65
Morning, chair and members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.
Redner 45
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Jasmine Vai on behalf of twenty first century century alliance in support of this measure. Thank you.
Redner 42
Good afternoon, chair Brian and members. Vincent Rosso, proud UC Riverside alumni and also, director of government relations at the University of California Student Association. We're proud cosponsors. Thank you.
Redner 59
Good morning, chair members. Cindy Lee, a UC Ann Barbara student with the University of California Student Association. On behalf of over 230,000 undergraduates, we strongly support this bill.
Redner 44
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, San Diego Housing Commission, California Yimbi, and Circulate Planning Policy in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 66
Good afternoon. Chad Begleesi, UC Davis student representing ASUCD's Housing and Transportation Advocacy Committee in strong support.
Redner 30
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 58
Good afternoon, chair and members. Eric Baredes, California Faculty Association in support.
Redner 3
Good afternoon. Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council and Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.
Redner 59
Good evening. Bibi Hamida Hashmat from UC Davis on behalf of use UC Student Association. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, are there any UCLA Bruins in the room? We'll now turn it back to the dais, mister Zabur.
Redner 66
So first of all, this is a great bill. I would love to be added as a coauthor, if you'd welcome that. I was wondering if you thought about, extending the streamlining to community colleges as well. Does does the bill do that, or is it merely UC and
Redner 64
It allows community colleges in so far that the land that is owned by them and also zoned and land use plans are the of the jurisdiction of them. If if they're outside of their jurisdiction, then they're in a city, then there are other CEQA measures that the legislature approved last year. But, yes, if this if if a community college happened to have land or acquires land and it's in their plan, then they could utilize this as well.
Redner 66
Yes. I was shocked last year when, you know, I ran the the bill that allowed for community colleges to that dealt with the zoning to just understand just the the high, high, high percentage of community college students that are unhoused, frankly. Mean, it's an astronomically high number. So, anyway, this is a righteous bill. Thank you for doing it, and, we're strongly in support.
Thank you.
Redner 48
We're in between mics here. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. My district in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County are highly impacted for more housing Mhmm. Especially with UCSC is trying to build and accommodate their plans to enroll more students. But I'm still I'm I'm a little conflicted by this bill because I'm also very worried about environmental impacts of water services and evacuation plans in the event of wildfires or floods, which my district is very prone to.
So can you help me understand how we're gonna still address those environmental, impacts?
Redner 64
Yeah. So, some of the the planning and the analysis that, typically been done when planning occurs for, for parcels, in this case, from UC Santa Cruz, they'd have their, is it long range plan long range plan, development plan that every UC campus does. They have to undergo analysis of all of those items. I will say to you, I have to get back to you on the issue of fire evacuation because I do not know what that would mean, but you have my commitment to look into that and try to better understand how that is being addressed currently under the unless UC is prepared to answer that. We would have to get back to you on that specific question.
Yeah.
Redner 48
And, you know, I've supported your CEQA exemption bill last year, AB fourteen forty nine and, and then SB three twelve that also focused on projects on campus. I'm just I'm still very conflicted with this bill, and I really wanna make sure that the environmental impacts are addressed and, you know, especially when it comes to wildfires and evacuations. So sounds like you got good support for the bill, so I think I'm gonna be laying off today, but look forward to more conversations with you.
Redner 64
Yeah. Thank you. I I would say that, you know, both in 1449, which went through this committee, there were a lot of protections that were put in place to make sure that there is no disregard for any sensitive environmental habitat. And then this bill in particular, thanks again to the work of the chair, identifies the issue of tribal cultural resources, which was, I know, in other streamlining efforts that was not been was not kept as part of that. So we've tried to ensure that we address as many of those issues that were left unresolved.
But, again, I have to get back to you on the specificity on the on the issue of evacuation.
Redner 13
Just to follow-up on on that, could you maybe the University of California or mister Alvarez explained that the the the nature of that long term development planning process? Like, is that required? Is that voluntary?
It is. Yeah. And I'm certainly, Mr. Moritzucci, not the land use expert at UC. So I can get back to you with specifics.
But the long range development plan relates to the ten year plans at the UC. Each campus put out sort of outlining plan development for the next decade. So each campus has a different plan. There's consultation with the local community, but I can get you back more specifics on kind of those plans and the process and all that.
Redner 63
But you're you're basically representing today that as part of that planning that these the the environmental impacts are addressed.
Redner 13
That's right. Yeah. There's a full EIR done, and it's absolute so that all those plans go through environmental review before they're finalized. Okay.
Redner 63
Yeah. Well, mister Alvarez, I I normally don't put my name on a CEQA exemption bill, but I'd be honored if you can add me as a coauthor.
Redner 1
Any other questions, comments, concerns by committee members? Mister Alvarez, would you like to close?
Redner 64
Again, thank you, mister chair. Appreciate the work on this. I do think we're gonna have the right answer from miss Perlin as I'm I'm reading through what 1449 did. Project site cannot be within a very high high fire hazard severity zone, but I'll definitely get you clarity on that to hopefully earn your support at the floor once hopefully this makes it to to the floor. Chair, again, thank you for your work.
I really appreciate that you are taking into consideration the needs of students, which I know you value so much. And we hope that this, while perhaps minor and technical, can really impact a lot of people's lives. And I respectfully ask your high vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister Alvarez, for your consistency and willingness to engage with this committee. Most, of the, I don't know, dozen exemptions for every type of project in California that came before this committee were either passed over or turned into some sort of streamlining effort. This is the only exemption I'm aware of that we plan to move, and it builds on, a legacy of work that you've specifically been championing. And that's what gives me a lot of confidence to do this. It's also the students who come up and drop bars like, we shouldn't be knocking on doors.
We shouldn't be looking for doors. We should be opening doors with our education. That's incredible. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 4
The motion is due pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. Brian?
Redner 4
Brian I Ellis? Aye. Ellis I Alaniz? Connolly. Aye.
Connolly I. Garcia. Aye. Garcia I. Haney.
Hart. Hart I. Hoover. Cholera. Macedo.
Aye. Meredsuchi. Meredsuchi. I. Pelerin, Schulz, not
Redner 7
Semler and Rogers, are you here? We're next Bennett. Semmelman Bennett. Come on forward.
Redner 67
Go ahead. Hey. Thank you very much. The district attorney has a 06:00 flight, and he's here as my witness. So I'm not gonna take much time at all.
As you can imagine, looking at the clock and all of us have trophy dashed out there. But, this is a bill the district attorney has worked with us our office on after the mountain fire and some complications that they discovered. So I'll turn it over to the district attorney.
Redner 68
Thank you, assembly member Bennett, mister chair, members of the Natural Resources Committee. Last year, our arson prosecutors received an investigative package from Cal Fire and the Ventura County Fire Department. That package entailed two separate fires a week apart. They're known as the Balcombe Fire and the Mountain Fire. In the Balcombe Fire, this is what we learned.
A tractor driver was clearing brush as he should have been. In doing so, the tractor caught fire. 1.8 acres were burned. He did everything he was supposed to do. He ran up the hill to get a fire extinguisher from his truck.
He summoned help. He waited on scene for first responders to arrive. What we didn't know at that time is that latent heat sources underneath a tire rim continued to smolder. A week later, high winds, red flag alerts caused the tire embers to be dispersed and dislodged resulting in 20,000 acres of burn and the loss of nearly 250 homes. Why is this legislation so important?
Redner 41
Because it places the fire suppression, the fire extinguishment equipment at the potential ignition source. Rather than the driver of the tractor having to go up and retrieve the shovel as well as the fire extinguisher, it will be right there in the tractor or affixed to it. This, in our opinion, is a way to help save lives and also to reduce homes from being burnt. Also, there's a companion piece to this legislation that says if you are a limited liability company, a corporation, or any other type of business entity, we would like to go ahead and extend potential, criminal liability to you, but only because we wanna standardize responsibility and place responsibility in the entity that is best positioned to address this, which is the business owner himself. Thank you.
Redner 7
we have anyone else in the room in support? How about opposition? Okay. Would you like to close? Or I'm I'm sorry.
I bring back the dais. Any questions? Would you like to close?
Redner 7
Motion and a second. Second. Okay. Would you like to call roll? Yes.
Yes. 202075.
Redner 67
I we I do accept the committee amendments, and I appreciate the bipartisan, motion and second.
Redner 4
Alright. Thank you. The motion is due passed as amended to judiciary committee. Brian Ellis
Redner 4
Ellis I. Alaniz Connolly Aye. Connolly I. Garcia Aye. Garcia I.
Haney Aye. Hart I. Hoover, Calra? Macedo? Aye.
Macedo, I. Matsuchi? Aye. Matsuchi, I. Pellerin?
Aye. Pellerin, Schultz?
Redner 67
Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for your I vote. Okay. You know, I I think I should just very quickly it it it A b twenty three thirty four, you know, directs Calvert's recycle to study, you know, the waste reduction measures in in other nations.
And I really appreciate the work of the committee to try to address some of the concerns about the bill, and so I think we're in good shape on the bill now. Thank you very much.
Redner 7
K. Anybody else in support? How about opposition? Okay. Back to the diocese.
Any questions? Oh, we do we have some opposition?
Redner 61
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Monica Wilson with Gaia, a global network with our head office in assembly member Wix's district and an office in the EU. We need to, I'd like to share three lessons from our extensive experience in Europe showing that European incinerators are a cautionary tale. They are not a model for California to follow.
The first is that the idea of the safe European incinerator is a toxic myth. Even with the EU's stricter emissions limits, modern incinerators contaminate dioxins, heavy metals, and PFAS to land, soil, and agriculture nearby. The second is that incineration is undercutting European climate and recycling goals. It's the single dirtiest fuel in Europe. And in many cities, incinerator is the single largest point source of c o two.
Norway is burning 65% of its collected waste and can't meet its recycling goals. As a result of these climate impacts, several countries in Europe have changed their policies in recent years. Denmark is shutting seven incinerators and increasing recycling just to meet its national climate goals. Many countries have introduced c o two taxes on incinerators. The EU has stopped climate finance or green finance for new incinerators.
And our third lesson that we've learned is that incinerators are a billion dollar boondoggle. Adding CCS to incinerators costs another billion dollars from the facilities we've seen trying this new experiment. To be clear, we agree that landfills are a major source of climate pollution, but trading one form of climate and toxic pollution for another form is not the solution. The solution is to fully implement SB thirteen eighty three with the proven approaches that are gonna be more efficient, safer, faster, create more jobs, all at a fraction of the cost of incineration. We also need to remember the legacy of environmental racism from California's last incinerators, we can't afford to go backwards.
So I urge you to keep us focused on the proven solutions for thirteen eighty three and not move forward with this bill.
Redner 62
Good afternoon or evening to pick up on the environmental justice part about incinerators. Thanks for allowing me to speak today. My name is Thomas Helm. I was born and grew up in and currently reside in Stanislaus County where I cofounded Valley Improvement Projects, a grassroots environmental justice organization, has worked for years to close down the remaining incinerators in California. Currently, as a b 2,334 stands, we're thinking through the ramifications of committee amendments, but we'd like to comment on the underlying premise considering incineration as a waste reduction strategy or methane reduction strategy.
This environmental justice issue goes back to 1984 when a report commissioned by California's Waste Management Board stated that rural, low income Catholic communities that have high school diploma or less or who work in farming and ranching would be the least likely to oppose the sighting of a trash incinerator. One year later, construction of the Covanta Stanislaus incinerator broke ground in West Stanislaus County, an area historically home to Latino farm workers with a population of nearly 80% people of color, mainly Latinos, and have several other environmental burdens such as Highway 5, pesticide use, contaminated groundwater, and increasing heat. As part of a a statewide movement against incinerations being cited in the valley and in places like LA, including Mothers of East LA, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. Grayson Neighborhood Council in West Stanislaus County were fighting against the incinerator, raising the pollution, like dioxin, particulate matter that they release, as well as how it dis disincentivizes recycling efforts. The one in West Anislaus County was one of the highest for particulate matter and disincentivizes reducing waste.
In fact, in 1972, Modesto had one of the first voluntarily curbside recycling programs in Modesto, and soon after the incinerator was built, it was slowly phased out. In addition, a 100 other cities and and companies also dumped waste in the West Anislaus Incinerator, making our area a dumping ground for the state and for large corporations. We believe that incineration is not a solution for waste. It actually will go to overburdened environmental justice communities. It will commodify trash, which will, disincentivizing us, reducing waste, and actually incentivize making more of it so that it can be burned for profit.
Thank you for your time today.
Redner 3
Sorry. Good afternoon. Nick Lapas with California Against Waste. We're also in opposition to align our comments with the two speakers. We're gonna have to review the amendments, before we consider changing the position.
Redner 7
Okay. Anyone back at the any of the members? K. Will you accept the amendments?
Redner 10
think I I I if I if I could make a closing statement since since we've had the opposition, comment. If this was a if this was a bill that authorized us to start to do incineration, I think these comments, would really be meaningful. I think these comments are still very appropriate for us to hear right now, because they emphasize what's wrong with incineration, and there is a lot that is wrong with incineration. There's also a lot that's wrong with landfills in California right now. We're having spontaneous combustion starting to take place, and it's going to become a bigger and bigger problem as e waste becomes a bigger and bigger part of the waste stream.
Redner 67
The solution we all like is is the recycling solution and the zero, you know, the the the recycling economy and zero waste. The challenge is getting there. And the reason I'm just simply asking for this is this seems like an appropriate time for us to stop and say, they're in Europe, they're doing something that doesn't fit what we're trying to do so much. In The United States, we're doing something that doesn't fit in Europe. But I would like us to look at all of the things that are going on, and is there are there new things that we could do that don't have the disadvantages of incineration?
And it's particularly interesting to see what they were doing with carbon capture in Norway, which is why I was specifically referencing that. But I this is not an attempt to try to take us back to the incineration area. It is an attempt to try to say, let's look at it. Let's stop, take a break, look at everything. Are there is there some new idea better than what they're doing in Europe and here that we could focus on?
Because I'm concerned that our recycling goals are going to be very difficult to meet. Everybody's saying we're having a lot of trouble with the organics and getting the organics picked up like we'd like. So that's all this is. It's a request for a study to look. Thank you very much.
I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 4
Connolly not voting. Garcia? Aye. Garcia I. Haney?
Hart? Aye. Hart I. Hoover? Calra?
Macedo? Aye. Macedo aye. Mereducci? Mereducci not voting?
Pellerin?
Redner 10
Yes, sir. Alright, mister vice chair. Thank you so much. We're here to present a b nineteen eleven. This bill really tries to thread the needle to do two things.
It tries to increase the value of the voluntary carbon market by increasing the integrity of it while also removing a key barrier that is stopping businesses from investing in the system. To reach our climate goals, we know that we have to incentivize private sector to be a participant. However, the voluntary carbon market currently operates with inconsistent standards, uneven oversight, and ongoing risks such as double counting and nonpermanent emission reductions. California has the opportunity to be a global leader in this space to really define what a good credit looks like, what the standard should be, who should determine those standards, and then for businesses that choose to invest to make sure that they have protections, legal protections as well. I wanna thank, first of all, Lawrence and the committee for working so hard on the bill with my staff.
Redner 14
We'll be accepting the committee's amendments. And with me today in support, we have Alfredo Arredondo on behalf of Conservation International and Theresa Lang on behalf of A New Climate.
Redner 41
Good afternoon, vice chair Ellis and members of the committee. Name is Alfredo Rodondo. I'm here on behalf of Conservation International, one of the the two proud cosponsors of AB nineteen eleven. CI has worked to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides humanity since 1987, combining fieldwork with innovations in science, policy, and finance. And as such, CI has helped to protect more than 2,300,000 square miles of land across land and sea across more than 70 countries.
So let me start with the core issue. Nature needs capital, and capital needs rules. We cannot meet the scale of the climate and biodiversity crisis with public dollars alone. We need private investment flowing into real climate solutions. We simply cannot regulate or publicly fund our way to every acre restored, every forest protected, or every ton of emissions avoided or reduced.
We need private capital to ensure that nature is part of the solution. But today, the market is clouded by confusion. Companies that want to do the right thing face uncertainty, while bad actors can exploit that uncertainty. This proposal by Assemblyman Rogers draws a a clear bright line. It says that environmental claims tied to carbon credits must be backed by programs that meet serious standards, not vague promises, not self created labels, not smoke and mirrors that ultimately do nothing for nature.
Redner 36
AB nineteen eleven is about accountability. It rewards rigor through independent verification, transparent registries, protections against double counting, safeguards for communities and biodiversity, and standards for permanence and reversal risk. In other words, the bill supports markets that are worthy of public trust. The choice before you today is whether California helps shape a high integrity market or whether we leave the field to weaker standards and less accountability. California has always led by setting the bar higher.
Redner 41
AB nineteen eleven does that. It protects consumers, rewards integrity, and helps unlock the private investment in nature that we know is essential to meet our goals here and across the globe. I respectfully request an I vote. Or yes.
Redner 61
Good afternoon or good evening to vice vice chair Ellis and committee members. My name is Theresa Lang, and I'm here on behalf of Anew Climate in support of AB nineteen eleven. ANU has developed over 200 high integrity carbon credit projects resulting in tens of millions of tons of emission reductions and carbon removals to date. We are supporting this bill because we want to see ever improving integrity standards in the market. This bill does just that.
It establishes clear standards for the use of high integrity carbon credits in climate related environmental marketing claims such as net zero or carbon neutral. The bill provides certainty for companies that make such claims so long as the carbon credits used were issued by a qualifying carbon credit issuing body and audited by a qualified validation and verification body. Voluntary corporate climate action is essential for addressing climate change and meeting California's climate goals. Companies care about climate action and about making truthful claims as their customers consistently express willingness to pay higher prices for goods labeled with environmental or climate claims. However, companies investing in high quality carbon credits face uncertainty when communicating these climate commitments due to the lack of explicit quality guidelines.
Redner 55
This in turn has hindered corporate climate action. AB nineteen eleven addresses these challenges by establishing objective criteria for carbon crediting programs and verification bodies. Importantly, this bill directly improves credit integrity. It aligns California's framework with and incentivizes purchases from crediting bodies that meet well accepted standards developed by the California Air Resources Board, CORSEA, a program under the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. Leveraging globally accepted integrity standards streamlines and clarifies compliance for buyers and judges as the bill requires CARB regularly publish and maintain a list of carbon crediting issuing issuing bodies approved by one of these three expert entities.
Redner 61
California will also demonstrate leadership on this topic by becoming the first jurisdiction to establish this type of legislation. Doing so sets the bar for others to follow and will provide much needed clarity in this space, which in turn will enable enable greater voluntary climate action by corporations and more climate finance to flow to important emission reductions and carbon removal projects. I thank you for your time and encourage your I vote.
Redner 7
on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund in support. K. Do we have anyone here in opposition?
Redner 4
Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis?
Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly? Garcia?
Redner 4
Garcia, aye. Haney? Hart? Aye. Hart, aye.
Hoover? Cholera. Aye. Cholera I. Mosito.
Aye. Mosito I. Matsuchi. Aye. Matsuchi I.
Pellerin I. Pellerin I. Schulz. Zabur. Zabur I.
Redner 1
The bill's out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Assembly member Avila Farias. So before you begin, can we call the roll on two items for assembly member Macedo?
Redner 4
AB fifteen thirty six Addis. Motion is due passed as amended to emergency management committee. Absent members, Alanis.
Redner 4
Cholera, I. Masato? No. Masato, no. Item 11, a b twenty one fifty two.
Motion is due passed as amended to emergency management committee. Absent members, Alanis? Aye. Alanis, I. Haney, Heart?
Aye. Heart I. Hoover? Calra? Aye.
Calra I. Masato? Not voting. Masato not voting. Matsuchi?
Redner 69
Oh, no worries. I was just debating whether to go with the 20 page presentation or the
Redner 69
Good luck. Thank you, chair and members. I I'm pleased to present a b twenty five fifty two. I would first like to start off by accepting the committee's amendments, and thanking the chair and, Lawrence Lindbergh for the assistance on this bill. Really appreciate it.
And, it is my first time in before this committee, so it was a pleasure working with you both on it. Last year's housing trailer bill, a b one thirty, included an innovative program to allow projects with vehicle miles traveled, mitigating obligations under CEQA to meet those obligations whole or in part funding affordable housing near transit through the Department of Housing existing TOD program. The governor's land use and climate initiatives office is currently working on guidelines to implement this program. AB twenty five fifty two clarifies that the lead agency may only require a land use development project to utilize the mitigation program if the cost is equal or less than the VMT mitigation measure, and the state has validated VMT reductions from earlier affordable housing projects. A project may still voluntarily use this program in the way to ensure that VMT mitigation program reduces the cost of new housing, achieves effective environmental protection.
Redner 50
Testifying with me in support is Silvio Ferra, with CBIA, and I would like to pass it over to you. Yep.
Redner 14
Good afternoon, mister chairman, members. Silvio Ferre here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsors of the bill. The author said it, but we too wanna extend a sincere appreciation to the chair and the committee consultant for what was days of very diligent conversation and collaboration to to get to where we are today, and we thank you for that. At the end of the day, everyone wants to see these programs be successful, wanna see these programs work. And I think even as this bill moves forward, there's probably gonna be more work to do, and none of it will be done without the work and engagement moving forward of this committee.
Redner 2
So thank you very much for that. This bill was introduced, and I think even as amended, to keep the spirit alive and intact, which is the TOD fund is an option out there, and we want it to be a successful option. We want it to thrive. We want it to be used. And really in order to do that, we have to make sure that when it comes for from mitigation to mitigation, that it is on par with other like type mitigation measures.
Redner 14
We have to do that to, number one, make sure that we are not inadvertently driving costs up, that we are not making the housing crisis accidentally worse. And that is all this bill simply does at this point, again, much to the great work of this committee. But one, we wanna make sure it's cost effective, that if it is the only mitigation measure, that there are not other lease cost options out there. So, again, we are not driving up the cost of housing. There's still a lot more work to be done on this.
This is still kind of a a wild wild west policy area, so we look forward to continuing the collaboration. And we would just today encourage your aye vote so this conversation continues. Thank
Redner 1
you, sir. Any any persons in this hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 65
Morning, chair and members. Quintana Fred on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.
Redner 49
Good afternoon. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium in support.
Redner 42
Gonzalez on behalf of California's business roundtable and the California Business Properties Association in support.
Redner 1
Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? We will now turn it back to members on the dice. Any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, we have a motion by mister Alanis and a second by Macedo. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
I can say very few members come before this committee and have their first bill on consent and their second one go what I think is probably gonna be a unanimous vote, so not then.
Redner 1
Bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 4
Motion is due pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. Brian?
Redner 4
Garcia? Garcia I. Haney? Heart? Heart I.
Hoover? Calra? Aye. Calra I. Masito?
Aye. Masito, aye. Maritsucci? Aye. Maritsucci, aye.
Pelerin?
Redner 1
That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. So now it's just committee members.
Redner 1
The remaining bills belong to committee members, and we'll just go down in file order.
Redner 48
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments. The counties of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz encompass some of the California's most iconic landscapes, a global agricultural region, and communities that deeply value the benefits of environmental conservation. Yet the region faces mounting climate impacts from wildfires, drought, flooding to coastal storms and extreme heat.
Redner 9
While the region has made significant investments in land protection and restoration over the past thirty years, strategic investment for stewarding these landscapes has been elusive. Over the last year, my office and I worked closely with the Trust for Public Land and more than 25 different organizations across Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties to identify regional needs, provide input on draft legislative language, and consider the appropriate scope for an entity that could provide support for long term stewardship and long term land preservation. These practitioners provided direct input into the creation of the language in AB fifteen forty eight. AB fifteen forty eight establishes the Monterey Bay Stewardship Authority, MMBASA, to support and enhance the work that is being done in the region by supporting long term stewardship of natural and working lands and strengthen regional climate and water resilience. MMBASA is not supplanting but supporting efforts for wildfire recovery, water and habitat restoration, agricultural sustainability, and expanded access to open space.
Redner 48
Revenue projections for MBASA will be developed over time once a governing board is in place and a regional needs assessment is completed. It may be several years before any revenue measures are pursued to support local projects. The expenditure and distribution plan across the three counties would be determined by the governing board drawing on models such as the San Francisco Bay Authority, which was successfully, which has successfully directed resources across multiple counties in a fair and transparent way. And joining me today to testify in support are are Moises Moreno Rivera, senior program manager for climate resilience at the Trust for Public Land, and Vanessa Flores on behalf of the San Benito Resource Conservation District.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, everyone. Again, thank you, assembly member Pelerin. Thank you, chair, and members of the committee. My name is Moises Moreno Rivera, and, and here just very excited for this opportunity. Since 1972, Trust for Public Land has protected more than 4,000,000 acres of public land, created more than five five thousand five hundred parks, trails, schoolyards, and iconic outdoor places, has raised a $112,000,000,000 in public funding for parks and public lands, and connected nearly 10,000,000 people to the outdoors.
Redner 48
I wanna thank assembly member Pelerin and her office for their leadership and their commitment to engaging regional partners every step of the way. TPL Central Coast work is grounded in deep partnerships with local organizations, including land trusts, tribal communities, and community based organizations. I'm here because there's this region is where the national mission meets reality. AB fifteen forty eight establishes the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority, a name that also came from public engagement, a regional entity serving Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties. Its purpose is to secure, coordinate, and allocate public and private funding to restore and enhance, protect, and support long term stewardship of natural and working lands across the region.
Redner 22
In 2021, Trust for Public Land began listening, community engagement, geospatial analysis, biodiversity roundtables, and in person convenings across all three counties. Local natural and working lands leaders all said the same thing. This region needs a coordinated way to secure long term stewardship funding. As the member mentioned, over 25 organizations participated as part of this ongoing effort. Climate change is not a future threat here.
Drought, flooding, wildfire, and habitat fragmentation are already eroding the landscapes that support the region's exceptional biodiversity. California condor, steelhead, salmon, endemic plants, and critical wild wild, life corridors. Natural working lands are not separate from the economy. Agriculture and tourism generate 10,500,000,000.0 annually. That economy requires an active long term stewardship.
Without it, the land degrades, and so does everything that depends on it. The state owned owned natural and working lands climate smart strategy projects temperatures of four to 5% increase by mid century, severe droughts, two thirds of beaches lost, and longer and more destructive wildfires in the Central Coast. You know, so protecting the land that recharges aquifers and filters watersheds is climate infrastructure. AB fifteen forty eight does that. This region has the partnerships, the science, and the local will.
ABN fifteen forty eight gives us the mechanism to do that. We kindly request your I vote today.
Redner 53
Good afternoon, chair and members of this committee. My name is Vanessa Flores, and I'm testifying on behalf of Carmander Brown, executive director of San Benito Resource Conservation District, who unfortunately could not make it today. The San Benito Resource Conservation District provides free nonregulatory confidential assistance to landowners and land managers to address soil, water quality, climate resilience, and ecosystem health on private and public lands. Our mission is to deliver and fill like, sorry, facilitate voluntary programs that conserve, protect, and enhance the natural resources of San Benito County. We facilitate stewardship and restoration projects on agricultural lands and community spaces through outreach, education, technical assistance, and project implementation.
Our main clients are farmers, ranchers, and owners of working lands. We support this bill because it was built from the ground up. SBRCD was at the table from day one. We participated in convenings on conservation practitioners from the three counties, governance concept reviews, and coordination across all three counties long before a bill was introduced. We organized and hosted county site visits with the Seminole Peloans team to ensure they understood the funding gaps associated with long term stewardship of natural and working lands in San Benito County.
This effort was shaped from the land up, not Sacramento down. This is nonregulatory legislation, no new mandates on landowners. Instead, it creates opportunity and brings resources to the people who are already doing the work. With over half a million acres of privately owned rangeland and farmland in our county, the RCD assist ranchers, farmers, and private landowners with habitat restoration, flood risk reduction, prescribed fire, and other wildfire mitigation strategies, invasive species managements, and other important conversation actions. However, we lack the capacity to pursue the large state, federal, and philanthropic grants that would sustain this work long term.
Redner 46
Farmers and ranchers in San Benito County already steward their lands in ways that keep the land productive to the benefit of us all, producing nutritious foods, contributing to our economy, and maintaining hundreds of thousands of acres of working land. Many of the practices that agricultural land owners are being asked to do for public benefit, including habitat restoration, invasive weed abatement, prescribed fire, and require additional and sustained funding so that agricultural does not have to bear the burden alone. The Salinas And Baharas Baharos Rivers runs through this region and support both agricultural and some of the state's most significant wetlands. Those waterways depend on active stewardship of the private land surrounding them. SBRCD does not does that work in partnership with farmers and ranchers, and it requires its sustained funding, we do not currently have.
Redner 53
Many growers and ranchers in this region have already adopted climate smart practices in their own. They are willing partners. What they need is reliable funding to maintain those practices over time. Embossa creates a mechanism to prove that. Embossa functions as a strategic granting and stewardship focused entity, helping the region complete for and manage state, federal, and philanthropic resources that local agencies like SBRCD lack the capacity to pursue on their own.
Redner 53
This region needs more resources at the table. AB fifteen forty five does that. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 35
Good evening, chair and members. Rico Mastro Donato. I'm the legislative director for the Trust for Public Land. So I am giving me to's in behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Network, the Climate Center, San Benito Agricultural Land Trust, San Benito Parks Foundation, and Protect San Benito County. Thank you very much.
Redner 41
Thank you, chair and members. Rafael Garcia here as a private citizen who grew up in San Bernardino County, and I support.
Redner 15
Kim Bill Kim Delfino on behalf of Trad Unlimited and Green Foothills in support.
Redner 17
Read excuse me. Reed Addis on behalf of Simprivirons Fund and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support.
Redner 9
Two minutes. Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Matt Diaz, president of the California Forestry Association, Cal Forest. And before sharing, my remaining concerns with the bill, I would first like to acknowledge the ongoing conversations that our members and myself have had not only the staff and or assemblymember's assemblymember's power and yourself as well as with your staff and committee members here. In fact, most of the issues that have been that we had with the bill have been addressed by members that were accepted today, so we're we very much appreciate that.
And we have one more remaining issue that we would like to continue to have conversations and try to work through. And that was a that that issue is the potential for working lands that are consistent through zoning measures to be potentially subject to additional taxes to support the authority into the future. For Cal Forest, that is timber production zone. Timber production zone is set in statute, is adopted by the local jurisdictions, and is applied to landscapes, throughout the jurisdiction of the, authority that is being contemplated here. And that zoning, in the minds of many, including myself, are very consistent with the goals of the of stewardship and working lands.
Redner 29
So I wanna say very clearly that CalForce is very supportive of both the notion of stewardship and the continuation of working lands and all the and all the co benefits that come along with that. But the issue of of the zoning of lands that are already in production, working well, achieving the goals of wildlife corridors, achieving the goals of economics, as well as recreation are a concern to our members because the the remaining industry, the vestige of the industry that remains within the the area that we are contemplating with this bill, the geographic scope of this bill is very, very narrow. And with that, I would accept any questions, comments, and I thank you for your time.
Redner 1
Thank you, sir. We'll now turn it back to oh, are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by mister Zabura, second by mister Hart.
Miss Pelerin, would you like to close?
Redner 48
I would. So I wanna thank, our witnesses today, and I also wanna thank my chief, Tomas Aduenas, who spent the last year plus working on this bill and being down in the district and meeting with all the stakeholders. And I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 1
This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 4
Brian I. Ellis? No. Ellis? No.
Alanis? No. Alanis? No. Connolly?
Aye. Connolly? Aye. Garcia? Haney?
Heart? Aye. Heart, aye. Hoover? Cholera?
Aye. Cholera, aye. Macedo? No. Matsuchi?
Redner 4
Matsuchi, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz?
Subur? Aye. Subur, aye.
Redner 66
Mister chair, members, first of all, I'd like to thank the committee chair and the committee staff for the extensive amount of time that you've engaged with my staff on this bill. I know that it has been one that raised many issues and just wanna extend our appreciation to, really, the hard work and the engagement. We will be accepting the committee suggested amendments today, but just wanted to start with a hearty and hearty thank you. I'm proud today to present a b seventeen forty sponsored by the city of Santa Monica, Streets for All, and Abundant Housing LA. Before I get into what this bill does, I'd like to elaborate a bit on why this bill is important.
Since the passage of the coastal act in 1976, the Coastal Commission has been an incredible force for good in our state, protecting and defending 1,100 miles of coastland coastline, one of California's and America's sacred resources. Yet in the fifty years since the Coastal Act was passed, much has changed in California. Accessing public access under the COASA Act generally is focused primarily on on traffic improvements and preserving parking at the beach. However, today, in dense urbanized portions of our coast, cars are only a part of a larger equation that includes trains, buses, bike lanes, and walkable streets. So today, the best way to enhance public access to to the coast includes supporting the use of transit and the creation of bikeways.
Often though, like in a city like Santa Monica, which I represent, that city has has expanded public access to the coast through an extensive public transit system and one of the best bike networks in LA County. Despite that, the removal of a few parking spaces can trivore can trigger an extensive and costly review by the Coastal Commission, studies that result in actually making it harder to put in place things that are good for public access. Projects that enhance public access by allowing people to live at the coast, to to out to dine outdoors, to actually put in bikeways to allow people to access the coast through through bikes and through pedestrians. Projects like these include installing a bike bus or bike lane that increases coastal access and reduces tailpipe emissions but requires removal of a limited number of parking spaces, building new housing that allows more people to experience the economic and health benefits of the coast and live near their transit, or expanding coastal amenities like outdoor dining that enhance access even if they require removing some parking. Each of these projects generally requires a lengthy coastal commission approval process, a process that often includes traffic and parking studies and ultimately ends with the commission requiring more parking than the city requires, failing to credit and support the transit and the bike infrastructures in these areas.
Now if these activities were taking place on a sensitive ecosystem, they might pose a real environmental threat. But in developed urban environments away from wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats, they have no impact on coastal resources, and actually these processes negatively impact public access and recreation. The lengthy delays caused by the process, by these reviews, do have real impacts on cities, on residents, and businesses who wait months and even years for these approvals. AB seventeen forty offers a very tailored solution to this problem for cities like urban transit rich cities like Santa Monica. It establishes a narrow designation called urban multimodal communities, which are cities or specific areas within cities that have high quality transit, bike infrastructure, and climate plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Once certified, control over a very limited but important set of activities returns to the city. These include managing parking requirements, adding bike or bus lanes, updating existing buildings or changing their use, constructing housing already allowed under state law or local law and only in certain areas that are away from sensitive resources, and permitting and managing temporary events and approving outdoor dining. Crucially, this bill returned some control to cities that meet the intent behind the coastal act. And in that spirit, it is an opt in designation. Cities will choose whether they wish to be certified, and nothing in the bill compels the city to build or permit anything.
Before today's committee, my office had heard concerns that this bill creates broad exemptions throughout the entire coastal zone. That isn't true. That was never the case even before today's amendment committee amendments, which we are accepting, and limit the bill initially to Santa Monica. This bill only applied to a small fraction of the coastal zone, built out urban areas with transit service and bike lanes without sensitive coastal resources like wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas. If areas have any of those things, this bill doesn't apply in those areas.
The bill preserves the coastal commission's authority and ability to protect beaches and coastal resources from activities that threaten sensitive habitats, and it preserves their ability to protect public access in their traditional way in areas without transit and bikeways. They can they will continue to focus on traffic improvements and parking near the beach. In meeting with coastal access, we also heard concerns about the potential for cities to eliminate or greatly reduce beach parking. And looking at the bill, we agreed with those advocates, and we've made significant improvements to the bill to limit it, to make sure that beach parking can't be taken out and that parking near parking near the beach is protected. Yet addition to meeting with with these folks, with the folks that had concerns, we also met with folks that with numerous advocates who were very excited about the potential that this bill has for their cities and communities.
In addition to housing, transit, and climate advocates, we received support letters from the mayor of San Diego, mayor of Long Beach, LA City Council member Tracy Park, represents Venice, and l the LA County Board of Supervisors. Prior to the requested amendments, this bill would include any city that met this this rigorous criteria. With the amendments today, the bill starts out only applying to Santa Monica and will create the template so that other cities through through subsequent legislation can be added at a later day. And at that point, hopefully, we will this will show that this bill will actually enhance public access to the coast without actually impacting any sensitive resources because it doesn't apply where there are any sensitive resources. At the right time, I ask for your vote at the appropriate time.
And with me today, I'd like to introduce Michael Schneider, founder and CEO of Streets For All, and Chris Peterson, was an attorney for the California Coastal Commission for nearly twenty years, including as his chief counsel who has been assisting us in narrowing and refining this bill.
Redner 58
afternoon. I'm Michael Schneider, and I'm the founder and CEO of Streets For All, an advocacy organization that fights to make our streets safe for all modes of transportation. I use a bicycle to get around LA, and in general, I stay away from our beautiful coast because it's often such a dangerous place to ride a bike. There are many other Californians who may want to take public transit, bike, or even walk to the beach, but cannot do so safely. By insisting on maximum space for cars and parking, the coastal commission has created a dangerous place for everyone moving around outside of a car.
The coastal act was written at a time of a vastly different transportation landscape.
Redner 58
time the act passed, rail had nearly disappeared in California cities, leaving the default assumption that everyone will need to drive to the beach. But things are different today. We have trains, Uber, Lyft, and Waymo, and ebikes. There's huge demand to access the coast for those outside of cars, but it's not safe to do so because coastal commission policy equates automobile access to public access and prioritizes parking above all else, including making space for road safety projects. In San Diego, the Coastal Commission insisted on a one to one replacement for restaurants using parking spaces for outdoor dining that was impossible for the restaurants to afford, so this rule resulted in the shutting down of outdoor dining.
Redner 35
In Malibu, despite horrific crashes and people dying on PCH, road safety improvements such as protected bike lanes are killed before they even proposed to the coastal commission because there's no room for parking replacement. In LA, LA DOT punted on the installation of a protected bike lane in Venice because they knew the coastal commission wouldn't insist on a one to one parking replacement ratio, and they had no room or budget to create the new parking. This conversation is in fact the reason why Streetsfrog came up with this idea and pitched it to the assembly member, and it's disheartening to know that as of right now, the city of LA, which wants this bill, isn't even included. AB seventeen forty is a common sense measure that doesn't cut off access to the coast, but actually enhances it and make sure that transportation within the coastal zone is safer, cleaner, and more multimodal, all things that are in line with California's overall climate policies. I hope that you will reconsider excluding the city of LA in the bill, and I thank you for your time.
Redner 12
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Peterson, former chief counsel for the Coastal Commission. I support a b seventeen forty because it provides a voluntary mechanism for accomplishing core objectives of the Coastal Act and does so in a way that builds upon longstanding Coastal Act permitting exemptions. The coastal act calls for concentrating developments in urban areas, promoting public transit, walking, bicycling, and minimizing energy consumption in vehicle miles traveled. It expressly allows public transit service to substitute for parking requirements.
Redner 70
The coastal act also establishes a variety of permit exemptions for developments in locations where the risks of adverse impacts on coastal resources are low. These include urban land and categorical exclusions. Unfortunately, the coastal commission and many local governments have too often focused on keeping the scale of development in coastal cities so small that it thwarts the coastal lock's goal of concentrating development. They have also too often focused on promoting driving and requiring parking in ways that can stifle new multifamily housing and thwart efforts to promote public transit, walking, and bicycling. The coastal commission and local governments have also failed to use existing coastal act exemptions to foster beneficial forms of development even in urban neighborhoods with good public transit and bicycle infrastructure.
By allowing go local governments such as Santa Monica that have good public transit and bicycle infrastructure to remove bureaucratic hurdles to the kind of development and transportation policies that the coastal act calls for, a b seventeen forty will help to more effectively and efficiently accomplish the objectives of the coastal act in those urban neighborhoods. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Chair members of the committee, Jordan Pena Carbajad on behalf of California Yimbe in support. Thank you so much.
Redner 11
Eddie Navarrete with the Independent Hospitality Coalition in support. I've also been asked to voice the support of BizFed, the Venice Chamber of Commerce, also Venice restaurants, OSP, The Brig, Cholita, Venice Beach Club, The Rose Room, Bell's Beach House, Jelena, Giusta, The Butcher's Daughter, Whaler, The Baja Cantina, American Beauty, and Irwin Hotel. We do not support the excluding City Valley restaurants.
Redner 44
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles as a proud co sponsor, and SPUR, and San Diego Housing Commission in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 5
Good afternoon, Chair members. Marlon Larr with the California Restaurant Association. Every year, we survey our members. This continues Permit streamlining continues to be a top three issue for priority for our members, and we thank you for the bill. Thank you.
Redner 3
Kasia Hunt with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Travel Association in support.
Redner 55
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support of the bill in print, and we'll be looking at the committee amendments. Thank you.
Redner 60
Good afternoon, chair and members. Kate Rogers from the Student Homes Coalition representing thousands of students across the state in strong support.
Redner 21
Good afternoon. Sylvia Soleigh Shah here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica, cosponsor and in support of the bill. Thank you.
Redner 30
Good afternoon, Sharon members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance. Disappointed by the amendments and the narrowing of a already very narrow tailored bill, but supportive, of the bill nonetheless. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there any folks in opposition to this measure who may have other disappointments? Two minutes each.
Redner 8
Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director for the Surfrider Foundation. We oppose a b seventeen forty unless amended. While we share the bill's stated goals, expanding coastal access, supporting affordable housing, and keeping our beaches open to everyone regardless of income or where in the state they live, that's not what this bill delivers.
What it does is carve broad unnecessary holes in the coastal act, removing the accountability mechanisms that ensure our coast does remain accessible to all Californians, not just those who can afford to live beside it. The Coastal Act already provides the correct path, the local coastal program. When a city certifies an LCP, it gains local permitting authority while maintaining coastal aft protections. Santa Monica has never certified an LCP despite fifty years and $375,000 in coastal commission grant funding to do exactly that. A b seventeen forty would reward that failure.
Redner 30
The proposed amendments limiting this to Santa Monica through 2034 are not a fix, but would be eight years of exempting a major California city from coastal act jurisdiction and eliminating the public's right to appeal projects that violate it. Santa Monica's own record illustrates exactly why this is dangerous. The city has repeatedly ignored coastal act requirements, approving luxury hotels without the requisite requisite, lower cost overnight component, allowing illegal demolition of affordable accommodations, and raising beach parking rates without commission approval. Each time, it was the commission that stepped in to protect the public interest. A v seventeen forty would eliminate that protection.
Redner 8
Rather than codifying exemptions, the legislature should require Santa Monica to complete a local coastal program as the vast majority of coastal jurisdictions have already done. We urge the committee for a no vote on a v seventeen forty unless all coastal act exemptions are removed. Thank you.
Redner 11
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. Although the commission hasn't yet had an opportunity to take a position on AB seventeen forty, out of respect for the committee and the timing of double referrals, commission leadership did submit a letter outlining a number of concerns. While the committee amendments limit the scope of the bill to Santa Monica, the commission's concerns remain. AB seventeen forty would exempt a large universe of projects from the coastal act, including mixed use projects, housing, building expansions, long term events, bike lanes, elimination of public parking, film productions, and more.
All of this would be based on the premise that the coastal act shouldn't apply to urban areas like Santa Monica. However, coastal management has always been just as important in urban areas as it is in rural ones. Protecting public coastal access, which only the coastal act does, is most important in urban coastal areas because that's where populations are highest and development pressures are the greatest. This includes making sure communities are planning multimodal transportation networks and visitor serving districts so that Californians from inland areas can reach the coast easily and experience it affordably. The coastal act and specifically local coastal programs are also the instrument through which communities are planning for sea level rise.
Redner 47
The legislature doubled down on this approach when it passed SB two seven two, which requires all coastal local governments to put sea level rise adaptation plans into their LCPs by 2034. AB seventeen forty would render all of these requirements largely meaningless because most projects wouldn't need to comply. The coastal act already contains tools like waivers, exclusions, and expedited permits for accelerating projects while also protecting resources in coastal access. The legislature has added to this toolbox with recent legislation that obviates the need for traffic studies for multimodal projects among other things. This bill would replace all of those tools with outright exemptions that will make the coast more exclusive, less affordable, and less resilient.
Redner 11
We would reiterate that if Santa Monica and Venice would like more agency in coastal permitting within their jurisdictions, then we would suggest that they complete their local coastal program as 90% of the coastal zone has done to date. I'm available to answer any questions.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Redner 51
Susan Jordan, the director of the California Coastal Protection Network in strong opposition unless amended and speaking on the same position by Heal the Bay, Endangered Habitats League, Coalition for a Beautiful Los Angeles, Outdoor Outreach, Orange County Coastkeeper, Resource Renewal Institute, three fifty Bay Area Action, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Environmental Center of San Diego, Citizens Preserving Venice, and Save Our Shores. Thank you very much.
Redner 50
Good good evening. Christine Esgrinza with the Center for Biological Diversity, respectfully opposing unless amended.
Redner 54
Jacob Evans with Sierra California in a respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 22
Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance. Oppose unless amended.
Redner 53
Good evening. Matthew Baker with planning and conservation. Though we appreciate the expressed intent, we do remain respectfully opposed unless amended.
Redner 1
I will take respectfully opposed as opposed to disappointed all day. We will now turn it back to the dais, mister Hart.
Redner 57
I appreciate, the author's really hard work to try and limit, the scope of this bill and to, mitigate some of the concerns expressed by the opposition. But I I shared their concern that fundamentally what the bill is trying to do is to get Santa Monica outside of the local coastal program process, the development process. And, you know, having been on the coastal commission, I I know these issues are complex and difficult, and the trade offs that, you know, are are being sought here, are well intended in their design and in in conception. But the the precedent that it sets and I think it was very compelling to see the the witnesses in support who were, you know, chief chafing at the bit to immediately expand the scope of this bill really tells the story. And that is, you know, we've had a coastal act for fifty years that has been extremely successful in protecting the California coast in the face of enormous development pressures.
I mean, there is probably no place in the planet that has more people with more financial stake in development in California than our coast. And that is why we need the COSOL Act, to protect that resource and to have a higher standard of development than that would happen in urban areas that are not coastal dependent, that doesn't have that edge that is finite and determinative. So I think we just have to be much more careful when it comes to these issues. I'm compelled by the testimony from the Coastal Commission staff who are saying, you know, please don't open this door. This is Pandora's box, and there's really no way to stop this once we begin to go down this path.
And and the alternative is so obvious and clear, which is, you know, the city of Santa Monica wants to have more agency and more control over development in its in its community and wants to to do things in a different way. They just need to create their own local coastal program that allows them to do that. I think the commission, you know, has has funded the the grant application to make that happen and is ready and willing and able to to sustain that and and make that happen if that course is pursued. And I I just think that's a much more productive path and state legislation that would open a tremendous spread precedent that would have massive consequences on this coast. So I can't support the bill today.
Thank you.
Redner 48
Thank you, and thank you to the author for working on this bill and reaching out to me early on this year about this bill. And I appreciate you taking the committee's amendments, but I continue to be concerned, like my colleague, about the precedent that this would set, to exempting certain jurisdictions from the COLSOL Act. And I understand Santa Monica has run into hurdles trying to get their local coastal program, but I'm not convinced that, those delays in certifying their LCP warrant a bill to carve out that, Santa Monica from the whole coastal act. I actually did a bill last year to create guidance, by the coastal commission to local governments to help them update their LCPs and to also adapt to sea level rise. And by exempting Santa Monica, that would also mean that they don't need to have that same accountability as far as adaptation to sea level rise.
So Nice. You may respond.
Redner 66
you. So this does not exempt Santa Monica from the coastal act. It it creates an area where a limited number and, you know, what was said about, you know, this exempt mixed use projects, a whole bunch, it create creates an area where a limited number of projects that generally enhance public access, that authority goes back to the to the Coastal Commission. The requirements related to an LCP will continue to move forward for Santa Monica. I will say that I asked Santa Monica to sort of help me understand why their LCP had not been approved by the Coastal Commission, and they gave me sort of a I'll almost I'll show it to you, pages of the back and forth of the submissions and the resubmissions and the and the disapprovals and the resubmissions and the disapprovals and the resubmissions, and it's gone on for twenty years now.
So this isn't something that's the fault of Santa Monica alone. I mean, it's basically, you know, a problem that Santa Monica has, but this bill was never intended to be just for Santa Monica. It was intended to try to streamline approvals for things that enhance public access and recreation opportunities in the coast and allow people to live in the coast and and focused on those areas where the coastal commission processes both create burdens and make it less likely that things that we all want to happen, concentrated development in these urban areas because the coastal commission is requiring all these studies and actually saddling these projects with parking and traffic improvements that, frankly, in an area that's heavily served by transit, it's really not needed. And so the first thing I'll say is Santa Monica is not just exempted from the coastal act with this. It is areas of Santa Monica that don't have sensitive habitat.
There's a limited number of things that they can approve. It includes parking management, not in the areas near the beach, multimodal roadway improvements, which is adding bike lanes, bus lanes, and curb extensions, sidewalk improvements, temporary community events, which are in very short duration, building renovations, and changes of use. Of course, these are like in Santa Monica and 3rd Street Promenade. I mean, it's basically changing building from being a retail establishment to a restaurant and that that kind of thing. And then housing and then outdoor dining.
It's a limited number of things. It is not it's not all development in the coast. It's that limited number of of things. So anyway.
Redner 33
Thank you, mister chair. And you'd made some reference to the LCP in in kind of the back and forth with the Coast Commission because, you know, it's it's well, I guess my my thought on that or and if you have any comment is that there are plenty of other cities that have gotten their LCPs approved working with the Coastal Commission. So what is it about if you know, what is it about Santa Monica's application process going back and forth that is causing them the the coastal commission to not certify it?
Redner 66
I think that there are policy, there are policy differences, including in many of the areas that we're talking about. You know, whether or not you're basically gonna allow housing, and what the standards are with respect to housing. And then in some cases, it's just really the the normal process of going through the approval of the Coastal Commission. I mean, they'll submit make a submission. The submission sits there for eighteen months, a year, two years.
They get a letter back that indicates a bunch of deficiencies. They respond to the deficiencies, then they get another letter back that has different deficiencies, then they respond to that. Then sometimes that requires new studies. And that's just been going on for you know, I've got just the list of what's happened since 2014, and I can, you know, I can read it all to you if you're interested. But it's it it, you know, I think anyone would take a step back, and some of this is just about the difficulty of coming to a an approval of a essentially a plan that basically is important to the city and that includes really all development development in in the the city.
City.
Redner 33
The the I I imagine that some of the cities that do have LCPs also would want more autonomy or probably have some difference of opinion of how they wanna develop. I'm sure many of them are small sleepy seaside towns and probably like it just the way it is and support the coastal act.
Redner 6
Positions, but there are some more some portions of LA, some or some portions along the coastline that are a little bit more urban, that are a little bit more developed, that probably want that autonomy that have probably gotten LCP's done. So, I I mean, I don't I I haven't looked at the twenty years of back and forth, you know, to the to the extent you have to understand, but it just seems curious to me that, you know, that that it would take that long. And I I I imagine that then the issue is if they don't have one is that every time you're you're trying to get a permit for anything, have to go through the close to commission on that individual project, whether it's, you know, some kind of zoning ordinance or enter you know, or to what because we all we've seen the 3rd Street Promenade, and I think everyone would agree that there's there's opportunities to kind of refresh that, I guess, for lack of a better way of putting it. We'd wanna be supportive of that. Are you suggesting that that can't happen or be or is it really cumbersome and that's part of the reason why Promenade hasn't had the ability to do that?
Redner 66
No. I mean, I think there's a problem in getting LCPs approved in the areas that don't have them, and that's one problem. This this is not trying to get at that. This is basically trying to make sure that we're that we're reducing the burdens on things that we think are are good for public recreation and access in urbanized areas where we don't have to focus so much on protecting cokes coastal resources like ESHA and habitat and wetlands. If you've got areas like that and you have urbanized areas, you want to include you want more housing to be located there.
We want housing to be in the coastal zone. We don't want that to be an exclusive area where people from outside the coastal zone can live. So we want that to happen here. And, I mean, the reality is that it is that it's it's very difficult to have housing in the coastal zone. I can.
There was a housing project that happened while I was a member of the assembly that senator Allen and I wrote letters to the coastal commission asking them it was a project that was approved by the the the NIMBY City Council when that was controlled when they had sort of an anti housing city council in Santa Monica unanimously supported by the Sierra Club, supported by every nonprofit group in the city, supported by labor. And they had actually on the housing, they actually had had agreed to a 40% affordable housing as part of the project. It was unforeseen, and it went to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission loaded up a bunch of extra requirements, and then the housing never penciled out and failed. So this is a problem.
This is this isn't a this is a problem that is not related to the LCP. It's a problem of how the the coastal commission, you know, protects public access in these areas because it's all about protecting public access. That's the only rationale that they would have in an urbanized area to to have authority.
Redner 33
Well, I I'm on I'm on housing committee as well, so if this goes through, I'll have an opportunity to vet it for those purposes. Are you suggesting that without this legislation that you are you suggesting that this legislation, as it's been narrowed by by the committee amendments that you've accepted, which may does make it a little bit more comfortable for you to support it because it is so narrowed? Although hearing from some of our coastal colleagues here in in in the opposition, there is a slippery slope, argument because without the amendments, it would apply to LA or, as you put it, to a much broader swath of jurisdictions. And I that's where it makes it a little more challenging. Are you suggesting that without this legislation that there would be or with this legislation, access will be increased to the coast?
Redner 66
Yes. I think access will be increased. We'll build more bike lanes. We'll build more housing. There'll be more outdoor dining.
All things that are good from a public access and consistent with coastal act policies. And, you know, the thing else I'll say is that the support that's coming from this is coming from jurisdictions that have l c approved LCPs and those that don't. It's supported strongly supported by the city of San Diego, by the city of Long Beach, by the city of Los Angeles, by the city of Santa Monica. They all tend to be urbanized areas that are largely built out and are having problems getting these kinds of things approved even when they've got a local coastal plan approved.
Redner 33
Okay. So you're you're so the suggestion that Santa Monica is just doing because they don't have LCP isn't necessarily accurate because you're
Redner 66
I mean, this was never supposed to be about in fact, my bill sponsor here is very, you know, is disappointed that that this is
Redner 66
Despite me. We we we really we but but it was limited to Santa Monica because I think we understood the concerns that are out there, and I think I I think we all sort of understood that we can demonstrate that doing something like this in a very focused way can result in enhanced public access and public recreation without actually in in harming sensitive coastal resources.
Redner 29
Mister Schultz? Thank you very much, mister chair. Assembly members of birth, thank you for presenting the bill. I don't wanna bury the lead. I will be voting aye today.
But I do wanna raise a few things. I just have a pair of questions for you. And by the way, I appreciate your answer or an answer from either of your witnesses in support. The committee analysis on page 10 does note that allowing self designation for a a a CDP exemption could undermine both the work that went into and the value of other jurisdictions who have completed the LCP application and receive approval. I'm just wondering, what would you say to that?
And more specifically, could you, putting a nice bow on top of it all, what is the purpose? What is the need for this legislation?
Redner 66
This this does not eliminate the need for the city of Santa Monica or any other jurisdiction that doesn't have a certified local coastal program to continue to try to get that. That that certified program gives those cities much more authority to govern development and activities. And so this does not remove that. This this is basically allows certain activities to happen that we want to facilitate in these urbanized areas. So that that's the first thing.
Redner 58
Can I yeah? We've been having a lot of talks about LCPs, and it it they make it sound so easy. If you get an LCP, these problems just go away. Every single LCP that I'm aware of in urban areas has a one to one parking replacement requirement as an example. If the city of LA in Venice wants to put in a bike lane on Venice Boulevard all the way to the beach, they are not allowed to do it without finding 40 or 50 parking spaces or building a new parking structure, which is the furthest thing from eco friendly.
So I just wanna point out, LCPs aren't the end all, be all, and it solves all these issues, and that's why this bill is needed. There's still the park the coastal commission still insists on things like that that handicap these projects.
Redner 31
Well, thank you both for your answer. That that is sort of what I was trying to get at, and I think those are good points for the committee to consider. The other thing I would just mention, assembly member Zabir, is that the opposition letters that were submitted raised concerns that that this bill could be used to facilitate luxury housing development or major building expansions without the same level of analysis. I'd also note that the committee analysis pointed to a bill that passed out last year, s b four eighty four by senator Laird, which was intended to address the affordable housing shortage in the coastal zones. And I believe the committee analysis suggested that this could potentially undermine those efforts by accelerating higher end development.
Redner 29
My question to you is, should the bill advance out of committee today? I personally believe that we absolutely should be looking at infill housing and more multimodal and the transportation investments, especially in areas, by the way, that hot have high quality transit, that have met the what I would say is a pretty robust definition of urban multimodal community. So my question is, if it gets out of committee today, do you I can I get your commitment that you'll continue to work with the opposition to the extent there can be common ground to be found?
Redner 66
Of of course. I'll I'll always work with the opposition. The one thing I will say is that the coastal commission also does not have authority over housing. So what this bill does is it reflects the fact that we want to build housing in densely urbanized areas and we're facilitating that. We actually it it will also continue to be governed by the other housing policies that we adopt here in the state of California, which is a combination of trying to make sure that we're building more housing to re increase the supply and therefore, you know, reduce the cost as well as with with some combination of affordable housing as part of that.
And so that is something that happens through the rest of the housing policy that we that we adopt here in the state of California.
Redner 29
thank you, very much, assembly member. As I said, I'll be voting I today. For what it's worth, I share some of the, frustrations of one of your witnesses. I would have supported the earlier version of the bill, But I think this is still a step in the right direction, and I will, at this time, move the bill, mister chair.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister Schultz. Any other questions, comments from committee members? Yeah. Full third hit. Forty five minutes ago, assembly member Allen East moved this bill.
No. Seeing no other questions from committee members, mister Zuber, would you like to close?
Redner 66
You know, I again, I I'll say that this has been characterized as this broad set of exemptions that applies to the whole coast. Even before the amendments that we took today, it applied to very limited segments of the coastal zone. I think it was portions of 15 jurisdictions that were highly urbanized. And, of course, we were prepared to pull it back more, we pulled it back to the city of Santa Monica to sort of be able to demonstrate the benefits of a of a program like this. You know, I I wouldn't be doing this if I thought.
And, frankly, we will continue to work with the coastal advocates out there. We do not want this to allow development in any place that will actually harm any kind of sensitive habitat, wetlands, development near coastal bluffs, any of that. And so we've been trying to fine tune this to make sure that that those areas are completely excluded so that when, we're moving forward with with something and and authority is transferred to the city, it's about things that you actually want to happen in an urbanized area that enhance public access and recreation at the coast. So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, missus Byrne. And we've had many, many conversations about this bill. I know we also ran out of time between our last conversation and the committee analysis to talk about skilled and trained labor standards, but I believe that's something you're committing to putting in the next committee?
Redner 66
Yes. We're we're we're still working with the with the building trades and our and our bill sponsors about language that we're hoping we'll have ready for the next committee.
Redner 1
In looking at all of the aspects of this bill, you know, I'm not convinced that Santa Monica doesn't have its LCP solely because of the city of Santa Monica. I think at times, these can get very 10 very tenuous and political. I also share a lot of the concerns about the expansion of this type of a program, and and I'm grateful to assemblymember Hart for subbing in today, and giving his perspective both as a past coastal commissioner and a a coastal legislature a legislature. Although this is the member from Santa Monica, and the city of Santa Monica is asking for this. And in my perspective, this is, to some degree, a district bill, with a sunset.
And I think any expansions of this kind of an idea will also have to come back before this committee, for us to talk about and think about and debate. And because of those reasons, I feel comfortable today moving it. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam secretary can call the roll.
Redner 4
Motion is due pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. Brian?
Redner 4
Alanis I. Connell Connelly? Connelly not voting. Garcia? Aye.
Garcia I. Haney? Aye. Haney I. Hart?
Voting. Hart not voting. Hoover? Aye. Hoover aye.
Calra? Aye. Calra aye. Macedo? Aye.
Macedo, aye. Matsuchi?
Redner 57
Bring us home, mister Hart. Whenever you're ready, sir.
Thank you, madam mister chair and members. It's been a long day, and I'm pleased to present a b twenty five sixty nine, a bill to ensure that projects exposing people to environmental hazards are fully analyzed under CEQA. Under current law, CEQA requires agencies to evaluate how projects impact the environment, such as through their effects on water quality, air quality, or public services. However, the court's decision in CBIA versus Bay Area Quality no longer requires agencies to evaluate how existing environmental hazards will impact the people who live, work, or study in a proposed project. As a result, projects can now be approved in hazardous locations without fully analyzing or reducing the environmental risks to future occupants.
Redner 28
For example, in 2017, a project near San Diego proposed to build a new school for nearly a 100 students and staff in a rural fire very high fire severity zone accessible primarily by a single road. Fire safety experts identified serious flaws in the wildfire project risk analysis and raised concerns about evacuation safety. A court dismissed those concerns stating it was incorrect under CEQA to focus on the impact of wildfire risk on students and staff rather than the project's impact on the environment. As a result, the project was not required to fully analyze or mitigate the wildfire risks to the people who would use the school. AB twenty five sixty nine closes this gap by clarifying that human health and safety are part of the scope of the environmental review under CEQA.
Redner 57
Specifically, it would require that the environmental review must evaluate, disclose, and mitigate the risks to people posed by existing environmental hazards present at a project's location. This bill would not change or override any existing CEQA exemptions. Rather, for those projects that fall outside of existing exemptions, this bill would ensure that those environmental risks are adequately addressed during the planning process. As climate impacts intensify, it's critical that we fully understand and reduce the risks of where we build. Speaking in support today is Curtis Alling with from Ascent Environment and Gabriel Tolleson advocating for the Planning and Conservation League.
Redner 56
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Gabriel Tolson, and I'm here in support of a b two five six nine on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League. This bill would fix a loophole and environmental review currently allows public agencies to avoid addressing preexisting hazardous conditions even when projects would place people in close proximity to those hazards. I know this problem firsthand. My middle school in Northern California was built in the early nineteen seventies on a parcel that used to serve as a landfill burn dump where metal was shredded, household waste was burned, and the toxic ash was buried.
Redner 72
The site is in a flood zone susceptible to king tides and is also across the street from a sewage treatment plant. So when the tide would come in, drainage channels throughout the campus would overflow, often bringing up landfill waste and restricting access to lower elevation buildings. And when the wind blew the wrong way, we smelled raw sewage. In 2024, the district proposed rebuilding the school, but they plan to do so on the same contaminated and flood prone site even to place new buildings on the lowest elevation part of the parcel adjacent to a drainage channel where sea level rise was anticipated to worsen flooding and expose students to lead contaminated water. Community members proposed alternatives that would have avoided these risks and improved the school's long term functionality.
However, because SEQ wouldn't require the district to address preexisting hazards, planning planners did not meaningfully consider these alternatives or otherwise address the project's obvious risks to student safety. The district has since approved a major renovation, a project which ironically will worsen the very contamination and flood hazards that most necessitated reconstruction. My school is not unique. Nationally, roughly 44% of schools are located within one mile of a hazardous site. CEQA is the primary process through which kids like me are protected from the impacts of landfills, burn dumps, overflowing sewage, and other environmental hazards.
I urge you to close this gap and support a b two five six nine today. Thank you.
Redner 73
Yes, sir. Good evening, mister chair and members. My name is Curtis Alling. I am a certified planner and cofounder and principal of Ascent Environmental. We're a consulting firm that works with CEQUA lead agencies, the state and local agencies that carry out their CEQUA compliance.
And I'm here as a practitioner speaking in support of a b twenty five sixty nine. I've worked with CEQA compliance for over forty five years throughout the state, and I'm recognized as an expert practitioner providing objective and independent analysis to public agencies about environmental outcomes of proposed projects as part of good government decision making. In 2023, I was invited by the Little Hoover Commission to testify at their hearings for improving CEQA. I support the bill because at its heart, it brings back into CEQA considerations of environmental impacts on people, particularly the people who will live, work, or otherwise use a project For over thirty five years prior to 2015, I've witnessed that evaluating the exposure of people to existing environmental hazards as a potential CEQA impact was required. It was carried out as a standard of care by lead agencies in their practice of CEQA compliance.
In 2015, the Supreme Court terminated the standard of care about environmental impacts to people because of some ambiguity in the statutory language. It eliminated lead agencies' access to this important in information about people's health and safety impacts when making their planning decisions. It also ended the government's opportunity to protect people's health and safety from those impacts through CEQA mitigation. Recognizing this history of CEQA practices, AB 2,569 would not expand CEQA's coverage, but rather restore this long held standard of care in considering impacts on human beings. And I say human beings intentionally because, in fact, one of the criteria in the law for a significant effect on the environment in the statute is, quote, cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
This is in public resources code twenty one zero eighty three. So AB twenty five sixty nine would bring this human health and safety effects of people's location back under the CEGA umbrella. So to close, let me just say that from the practitioner's viewpoint, I've seen the benefits that this can have in helping to protect people's health and safety, and the and so returning those benefits through this bill would be tremendous, and I humbly ask for your support.
Redner 1
Thank you, sir. Any persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Redner 51
Susan Jordan, California Coastal Protection Network in support, and thank you for carrying this bill.
Redner 50
Good evening. Christina Scrinch from the Center for Biological Diversity and Support. Thanks.
Redner 15
Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife and the Committee for Land, Air, Water, and Species in support. Thank you.
Redner 19
Good evening, Marie Lu on behalf of EnviroVoters, NRDC, and the San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility and Support.
Redner 71
Good evening. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League expressing, support on behalf of Mothers Out Front, Silicon Valley Center on Raised Poverty and the Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper and three fifty Bay Area Action. Thank you.
Redner 20
Good evening. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance action.
Redner 54
Jacob Evans with Sierra California in strong support and registering support for Earth's justice, clean water action, and smart action for growth and equity in Santa Barbara. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in opposition to this measure? As the final opposition of the day, we're gonna hold this two minutes real tight.
Redner 27
I'll go real tight. Good evening, chair and members. Adam Wrigley on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We're in strong opposition. He's been tagged, as a cost driver.
Frankly, in a in a housing crisis where the median home prices are $905,000, 82% of Californians can't afford the median home price. Every year, I've been up here testifying for more housing. That number has gone up. We think this is a massive expansion of CEQA. We mentioned the supreme court decision from 2015, which actually clarifies that CEQA from its original intent from 1970 has never been about the environmental impacts on the projects that the supreme court per the twenty one zero eight, three section specifically says the environmental effects of a, quote, project on the environment or on human beings.
Redner 15
And so that's how the court decided to clarify that CEQA had never intended what we call reverse CEQA, which is really basically enabling anybody who does not wanna see a project come in, it's housing or otherwise, to effectively say, potentially, the air emissions are are too high in that area. You shouldn't bring any more housing there. High fire severity zones, the city of Piedmont sits in one of those. We would be able to challenge or anyone could challenge a project simply because they're in a high fire severity zone. Local governments, we have to have some level of trust that local governments have the best interest to site projects where they should be to allow CECO to expand such that you have an entire new jurisprudence to go after projects.
Redner 27
We'll exacerbate housing prices in California, exacerbate prices. And if that's the environment in terms of your your land use policy, then this is the bill for you. If you think we should be going in the other direction to find a balance, then we don't think expanding CEQUA in this environment is a very good policy, and so we're strongly opposed. Thanks.
Redner 5
Alright. Good evening. John Kennedy with RCRC closing it out now. So we represent 40 counties, of the state's 58 counties. We regretfully oppose a b twenty five sixty nine.
We do strongly support CEQA and its core information disclosure and mitigation requirements. Unfortunately, CEQA has really become a litigation trap often used by project opponents to derail projects, delay projects past the point of their, useful lives. So we appreciate the author bringing up this topic. Local governments already carefully consider the environment's impact on our project through the land local land use and decision making process. We have adopted general plan safety elements.
There are a number of state maps regarding fire, earthquake, tsunami zones. We have building standards that apply to all of these projects. We've been working on this very topic about mitigating a project impact in high fire risk areas, trying to ensure that, residents have safe egress routes for years. We started working on this with senator senator Hannah Beth Jackson years ago. We continue to work on it with senator Allen, not necessarily in the CEQA context because CEQA is so litigious.
We're never going to win in the CEQA context because someone is always gonna come in, use a fair argument standard, and blow the projects out of the water. So we would love to get at these issues, but CEQA isn't it. So we fear that this bill will provide another tool that will be used by project opponents to derail our projects. We'd be really happy to consider these changes and probably a lot of other changes if CEQA is really restored to core of what it was focused on. But we can't really do that because it's a litigation trap.
So if we wanna start talking about solutions to the fair argument standard, about solutions to the administered record, solutions to document dumping, we're here to do that. We'd love to have that conversation. We'd welcome it, but we're not. And so unless and until we can do that, we have to oppose this bill. Look forward to future conversations with you, but this has taken everything in the wrong direction when it comes to CEQA.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any persons here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Redner 65
Good evening, chair and members. Freddy Cantana on behalf of California Apartment Association in respect of opposition.
Redner 13
Ben Turner with Acxiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in opposition.
Redner 10
Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, echoing the points raised by my colleague from RCRC in opposition.
Redner 2
Nathan Skalson with the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition.
Redner 55
And Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, respectfully in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Seeing nothing, mister Hart, would you like to close?
Redner 57
Yeah. I'd just like to say that, you know, CEQA is about, transparency of information. You know, the public, when making a decision about a project or participating in the local government decision making process deserves to know the facts about a development project and what the the issues are that have to do with environmental impacts for that project. Prior to the the court case that limited the scope, that was a more expansive evaluation of environmental impacts and what their what those impacts would have on humans. And and I think that there has been a lot lost in terms of making, planning more effective, more successful in California.
You know, there is always this, concern about litigation. The reality is 98% of all the projects that undergo CEQA do not get litigated. And in these instances, when you do provide more analysis of the environmental effects on human beings, you build better projects that cost less that result in less litigation. So we can either ignore those things and continue to build projects that have litigation, or we can address the issue, provide all the information in a transparent way, build a better project at the beginning. And I think that's smarter development in California that will save money.
I respectfully urge and I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, mister Hart. I agree with you. This bill has to do pass recommendation, madam secretary. Do we have a motion?
Redner 1
Mister Marasucci, seconded by mister Schultz. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Redner 4
Brian I. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis?
No. Alanis, no. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.
Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?
Redner 4
Haney not voting. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Hoover?
Nope. Hoover, no. Cholera? Aye. Cholera, I.
Macedo? Macedo, no. Oops. Wrong one. Matsuchi?
Matsuchi, I. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, Scholz? Aye.
Scholz, I. Zipper. Aye. Zipper, aye.
Redner 1
Madam secretary, can we, call the roll on all of the previous bills that mister Hoover missed? That's right. Also, colleagues, we didn't have a motion for item number five and item number 12 because we didn't have a quorum yet. Yes. I will let Martha steward this.
Redner 23
We'll start from the top, And then I'll add we'll add the votes as we go. Okay. A b fifteen thirty six, motions do pass as amended to Assembly Emergency Management Committee. Chair voting aye. Absent members, Haney?
Redner 4
Haney, aye. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. That has 10 votes.
That's out. A b Yes. You are no. You are no. Yes.
A b fifteen forty eight, Pelerin, motion is due pass as amended to local government committee. Chair voting, aye. Absent members, Garcia?
Redner 4
Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover?
No. Hoover, no. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye.
That has 10 votes. That is out. AB seventeen thirty two, Alvarez. Motion is due passed as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. Chair voting aye.
Alanis? Aye. Alanis aye. Haney? Aye.
Haney aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover aye. Calra?
Aye. Calra aye. That has 13 votes. That is out. AB eighteen twelve, Aguirre, motion is due passed oh, two appropriations.
We need motions.
Redner 4
By mister Hart. Okay. Thank you. Motion is due passed two appropriations. AB eighteen twelve.
Brian?
Redner 4
Ellis not voting. Alanis? Alanis I. Connolly? Eighteen twelve.
Connolly I. Garcia? Aye. Garcia I. Haney?
Aye. Haney I. Hart? Aye. Hart?
Aye. Hoover I. Calra? Aye. Calra I.
Masato? Masato not voting? Mereducci?
Redner 4
Pellerin, aye. Schulz? Aye. Schulz, aye. Zaber?
Aye. Zaber, aye. Has 11 votes. It is out. A b eighteen forty nine Pappin, motion is due passed as amended to Utilities and Energy Committee.
Chair voting aye. Absent members, Alanis? Aye. Alanis aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney aye. Hoover?
Redner 4
1849. Yes. Pellerin, aye. She's sitting. With a question mark.
Aye. That bill has 10 votes. It is out. AB nineteen eleven Rogers motion is due passed as amended to judiciary committee. Chair voting aye.
Absent members, Connolly.
Redner 4
Hoover, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That is 14 votes.
It is out. AB twenty seventy five Bennett motion is due pass as amended to judiciary. Brian? Aye. Brian aye.
Alanis? Aye. Alanis aye. Haney? Aye.
Haney aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra?
Aye. Calra, aye. That has 14 votes. It is out. AB twenty one fifty two, Gonzalez, motion is due passed as amended to emergency management committee.
Chair voting aye. Absent members, Haney.
Redner 4
Haney, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Schultz?
Aye. Schultz, aye. That is 13 votes. Aye. It is out.
AB twenty two sixteen, Aguirre Curry.
Redner 4
Macedo. Macedo. Motion is due passed to appropriations committee. Brian? Brian I.
Ellis? Aye. Ellis I. Alaniz?
Redner 4
Alaniz I. Connolly? Aye. Connolly I. Garcia?
Garcia I. Haney? Aye. Haney I. Hart?
Aye. Hart, I Hoover.
Redner 4
Calra, I Macedo. Aye. Macedo, I Mereducci. Aye. Mereducci, I Pellerin.
Aye. Pellerin, I Schulz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Zuber?
Aye. Zuber, aye. That has 14 votes. It is out. AB twenty three thirty four Bennett, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.
Brian?
Redner 4
Brian, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis I. Haney?
Aye. Haney I. Hoover? Aye. Hoover I.
Calra? To a b twenty three thirty four.
Redner 4
Caller not voting. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. 10 that has 10 votes.
It is out. AB twenty four eighty one, Soria, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Alanis? Aye.
Alanis, aye. Haney,
Redner 4
Hart, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hart Hoover, aye. Culra?
Aye. Culra, aye. Mertzuchi?
Redner 4
Mertzuchi, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That has 14 votes.
See this out. AB twenty five fifty two Avila Farias, motion is due passed as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. Chair voting aye. Absent members, Haney.
Redner 4
Haney, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. That has 13 votes.
Sue this out. A b twenty five sixty nine Hart. Motion is due never mind. That one's done.
Redner 4
Consent calendar. Alanis? Aye. Alanis I Haney? Aye.
Haney I Hart? Aye. Hart I Hoover?
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.