Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
And in California, we partner with the Dungeness crab fleet and serve as an active member of the Dungeness crab task force and help shape adaptive climate ready fisheries management strategies that balance both economic and environmental priorities. The Dungeness crab fishery is one of the highest value, most productive fisheries in California. However, it is under increasing stress due to climate related delays, closures, and uncertainties that are having real impacts on commercial fishing fleets and coastal communities as well as marine species. SB thirteen ninety three will implement longstanding recommendations from the Dungeness crab task force which is the legislatively mandated advisory body and will ensure the continuity of the current dungeness crab management programs and support an economically viable fishery and meat conservation goals. Dungeness crab fisheries one of the only California fisheries managed by the legislature and the legislature' role is critical to ensuring that it remains a productive sustainable and culturally and economically important fishery.
This bill is an important bill that will provide for the uninterrupted sustainable management of one of California's most valuable fisheries. For these reasons, we strongly support SB thirteen ninety three. We greatly appreciate senator McGuire's continued leadership on the Dungeness crab fishery. And we thank chair Becker for presenting the bill on his behalf. And we respectfully request an aye vote on s b thirteen ninety three thank you.
Speaker 5
Mr. Chairman and members my name is matt cliffer and the California director for trout unlimited and I' here to speak on behalf of s p thirteen ninety three, which we are co sponsoring with our partner California Trout. And I'll
Speaker 1
talk briefly about the steelhead report card portion of the bill. I'll just say that, as you may be aware, steelhead anglers are are a pretty passionate bunch.
Speaker 5
I'm one myself. This is a program. It's been around about thirty years. The steelhead angling community knows this program. They're used to it.
They like it. I think anglers really appreciate knowing that they are contributing they feel like they're contributing to conservation. They like that the data collected goes to make management decisions and and other regulatory decisions. They like that a portion of the revenue goes to support habitat restoration projects. And it's just a a broadly widely supported project program.
Speaker 32
I will say briefly that we'd like to thank the committee staff for the work on bill and particularly for the amendments, which we do support. We think they make it a better bill and will lead to better returns, you know, which has been an issue with the bill in the past. It's a low rate of return. We think some incentives in there are the right right direction and will help make a better program. And so, I can leave it at that.
Speaker 5
I, I'd just like to thank our cosponsors and, and, the author, and I'm happy to take any questions about the bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody that is a me too in support of this bill. Name organization and the fact that you support it.
Speaker 7
Emily Brudzinski on behalf of Andrew governor and our client the pacific coast federation of fishermen association in support.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else this would be the opportunity for anybody in opposition to speak on this bill. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the committee. And I get to, in a very snarky way, ask the presenter, are you gonna accept the amendments that the chair of the committee forced on you?
Speaker 4
Indeed. Great. I'm I'm glad that's clear. Comments from committee members or questions? Then let me just say, if one of the interesting things in the analysis is if you look at the past legislation, it's almost been senator Maguire on this issue.
And I think that what he's really doing with with the group that met and taking their recommendations and other things is just moving this whole program forward consistent with where it's been, but consistent where the stakeholders have weighed in and suggested improvements. And and we know that with the climate changing and with this industry really suffering due to closures because of many different pieces of the climate, that it is a moving target on what the right thing is to do. And so I think that's why this bill is a very good addition to statute. Any other comments? Then would you like to close?
Speaker 1
I wanna thank, the sponsors and and, witnesses today. We strictly ask for an I vote.
Speaker 4
Great. And when we have one more person, the chair will call a quorum, and we will start voting on these bills.
Speaker 2
K. At this point, we are waiting for presenters. So we will be on hold for right now. Okay. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 1
We are going to continue and we file item six s b twelve fifty senator Cortez. Go ahead when you're ready.
Speaker 8
Thank you chair becker and colleagues. I'm very happy to be presenting sb twelve fifty at this time. California is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world as I think everyone in this room knows. But our transportation system is fragmenting the very habitats that sustain the biodiversity. Highways and roads are one of the largest barriers to wildlife movement dividing habitats into isolated patches and making it harder for species to find food, reach breeding grounds, and adapt to changing conditions.
Over time this fragmentation reduces genetic diversity, weakens population, increases the risk of local extinction. As we plan and invest in our transportation system, we have an opportunity to confront how those decisions impact the landscapes and ecosystems it runs through. Wildlife connectivity is not just about the individual species, it's about the health of the entire ecosystems. And this is especially critical as climate changes force species to move across landscapes to survive. Without connected corridors, we are effectively locking species in place, landlocking them specifically as conditions change.
California has made significant investments in protecting land and habitat, including efforts like our thirty-thirty goals, 30 by-thirty goals, but these efforts only work if landscapes remain connected. SB twelve fifty helps align our transportation system with those goals by making wildlife connectivity a core part of how the state plans and invest in highways. It requires Caltrans to include wildlife connectivity in its transportation asset management plan. It establishes clear targets and performance measures and strengthens coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and public input. It also recognizes wildlife connectivity infrastructure like crossings, culverts, and fencing as essential systems assets, not optional add ons.
Today, these projects are often treated as separate environmental efforts, and that leads to fragmented planning, underinvestment, and missed opportunities. The bill shifts that approach by embedding connectivity into routine transportation planning so we can address those needs up front rather than after the fact. It still allows the state to deliver projects more efficiently, but by integrating solutions into work that's already happening on our highways. Importantly, these ecological improvements also improve public safety. And I don't think that can be emphasized enough.
By reducing wildlife vehicle collisions, which occur by the thousands each year,
Speaker 8
therefore keeping drivers safe. We know these solutions work. Wildlife crossings combined with fencing can reduce wildlife vehicle collisions by up to 90% while restoring habitat connectivity. So, this is a practical approach. It delivers multiple benefits at once, healthier ecosystems, safer roads, more efficient use of public dollars.
I also want to note that we've been working closely with the California Building Industry Association to address their concerns. In fact, appreciate the constructive conversations that have led to agreement on amendments that will be taken in the senate appropriations committee and we expect that we will move them to a neutral position. Here with me today to testify in support of the bill we have our sponsor Michael Jarrett on behalf of the nature Conservancy and Jeannie Ward Waller on behalf of Pew Climate Plan and the National Wildlife Federation. Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
And, at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully request your aye vote.
Speaker 9
Great. Good afternoon, chair and members. Michael Jarrett with The Nature Conservancy. We are proud to sponsor s b twelve fifty, which would support better planning and agency coordination for wildlife connectivity. TNC thanks senator Cortese for his leadership on this important issue.
At its core, SB twelve fifty is about protecting California's natural resources while improving public safety and recognizing that these two goals are interconnected. Our highways cut through landscapes that wildlife have been moving across for hundreds of years. When we build roads through these natural corridors, we don't just get animal vehicle collisions, we create barriers. Those barriers limit animals access to food, water, habitat, and mates. Over time, that can lead to isolated and declining animal populations.
Wildlife vehicle collisions are preventable safety problem on California's roads. An analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documents an annual statewide cost of above $250,000,000 with collisions, concentrated in predictable hotspots. Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97%. There are examples of success that s b twelve fifty can build on such as in the Caltrans district 9 Highway 395 Sonora Junction. During the development of a broader safety project, Caltrans staff integrated two wildlife underpasses into the transportation project area where over fifty percent of collisions involve deer with only a 1% increase in total project costs.
Speaker 14
Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there's a huge opportunity to leverage funds and to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support on s b twelve fifty. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanie Wardwaller representing Pew and Climate Plan. S b twelve fifty is about bringing structure and accountability to Caltrans planning efforts to make highways safer to enable upgrades coincident with planned projects while protecting our unique natural systems. As Michael said, wildlife vehicle collisions have real and significant costs, emergency response, medical bills, vehicle repairs, and traffic delays that show up in state and household budgets. Well designed wildlife crossings paired with fencing should be treated as a highly effective safety safety treatments they are, not optional enhancements.
Speaker 10
That's why the state enacted a b twenty three forty four in 2022 to set the policy direction to identify and address the most significant hotspots. SB twelve fifty doesn't mandate any new projects or create a new funding program. Instead, it does something practical and fiscally responsible. It stab establishes performance goals for wildlife connectivity alongside other transportation objectives to plan, track, and manage over time. This bill helps the state address wildlife crossings on routine state highway maintenance projects, digging once to address all priority needs at a location at one time.
And to be clear, the types of improvements we are talking about may be as minor as replacing a drainage culvert that already needs to be replaced with a slightly larger culvert that can accommodate key species. The alternative is an expensive and piecemeal approach where wildlife crossings are implemented as standalone projects that could involve coming back to a location where a recent pavement project was just completed disrupting and frustrating the public with traffic closures the second time to tear up the road for a new project. In a time of significant pressure on the transportation budget, s p twelve fifty aims to focus on delivering multi benefit projects that address safety, maintenance, resilience, and habitat connectivity. We are Janaebo.
Speaker 1
K. Almost exactly on time. We will, yeah, take others in support now. Anyone else would like to vote vote voice support, please step to the mic. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Sosen W strategies here on behalf of animal legal defense fund in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Jenny Berg, California state director for humane world for animals in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Chavez with the California habitat conservation planning coalition, mid peninsula regional open space district, and the interest of Santa Cruz County in support.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and as a courtesy is conveying the support of the Climate Center, the Road Ecology at UC Center at UC Davis, Morongo Basin Conservation Association, Endangered Habitats League, the Alameda County and Honey Lake Valley RCDs, Pathways for Wildlife, and Las Padres Forest Watch. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Good afternoon. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board Supervisors in support.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning Conservation League in support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members Jordan Crimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. You.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon Lisa Morgan in support. El Dorado County Transportation Commission thank you for considering.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon chair and members. Juliana Tetlow on behalf of San Diego Humane Society in strong support along with three fifty Bay Area Action, Better World Cup Group, CNPS Mojave Desert Chapter, Eco San Diego, Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition which is a coalition of about 22 groups in the Greater San Diego area, SC Wildlands, and Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. Thanks so much.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Alex Lumer on behalf of Native American Environmental Protection Coalition, Wildlife Conservation Network, San Diego three fifty, Green Foothills, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Information Center, and Resource Renewal Institute in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
good afternoon nicholas sackett on behalf of social compassion in legislation in support thank you
Speaker 1
thank you do we have any lead opposition witnesses okay anyone else like to register opposition
Speaker 21
hi I'm jenny aguilar here on behalf of the california building Industry Association. We appreciate the author for working with us and with the new amendments to modify the definition of wildlife asset, and we'll we will be neutral. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. I would now like to take a moment to establish a quorum. Can you, assistant, please, call the roll for quorum?
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? Here. Becker here. Sarto? Allen?
Cobaldan? Here. Cobaldan here. Grove? Sorta.
Grove sorta here.
Speaker 4
questions and then a comment for the author. First, it just sort of got alluded to, but what's the nature of the amendments? And I' gathering since they' not here you' going to take them in the next committee is that' correct. What' the nature of it?
Speaker 8
They' been put in writing so they' not ambiguous but to them to the opposition or us The issue was around local roads. The bill as originally drafted really didn't articulate between and it doesn't still in some ways between local roads that camp should be doing this kind of planning around and fish wildlife versus highways and everything in between right. The building industry association predominantly is going to be showing up around local roads. I don't want to put words in their mouth but my understanding of their concern was to make sure there weren't going to be exactions in this planning process coming from the property owner side. Planning is really all around the right of ways and within the right of ways.
It's not a bill that's attempting to get impact fees from local developers or allow exactions. I know the industry has, from their perspective, felt like they've been burned on things like that before because folks come in after the fact, say here's a good way for us to derive some local dollars. So we're putting explicit express language in that says that can't happen relative to particular work. This planning process interconnecting the planning around fish and wildlife in TAMP, the asset management work.
Speaker 4
Thank you. That's really helpful. The other question I was gonna have is I know when I did three iterations of the coastal trail bill to try to get Caltrans to put it in their plans. They were so protective that I think I had at least one vetoed when I was in the assembly. Have you been engaging the administration in a way that they' going to be comfortable with this?
Speaker 22
I don' know how much the sponsors have done we have because this is a planning exercise without appropriations attached to it it doesn' mandate appropriation not only does it not mandate private sector contributions or exactions, it really doesn't mandate budgetary participation. Could lead to that ultimately in a Caltrans project, for example, if they deemed that the project should go any project should go forward with some sort of integration. For example, there's a project between your district and my district that I believe mid pen has been working on or Open Space District one of them which comes over Highway 17 to Lexington Reservoir was both a pedestrian crossing and a wildlife hunter crossing. If you're going to do either one of those you may as well do both and you may as well do them in an integrated fashion. But as you know, our very good friends in the open space arena aren't particularly expert on transportation planning processes.
Speaker 8
So they get going on really on the property owners or environmental easement side. And of course, our witness probably speaks more to that. Start to realize that they don't really have planning integration or communication, let alone integration, going on with whomever, not just Caltrans but the regional government agencies aren't going to be aware. CTC is not going to be aware. So this is really creating this high level planning awareness.
And again, becomes a later discretionary decision by somebody if the project should go together. Yes absolutely I didn't want to call you out as a senate budget chair but as someone who's very well versed in the budget process you probably have said enough about the fact that those decisions would come later after there' a planning analysis done through this bill.
Speaker 4
I think just to comment on that in some ways with cal trans it was never quite the budget process It was whether we were impinging on their authority in doing regional transportation plans. In the coastal Trail, there's something like, I'm not gonna get it right, 45 miles of the entire coastal trail would have to be in Caltrans right away because they have the only bridge or the only over over crossing or whatever it is. And they felt really pushed upon if we were mandating things. In the end, it was getting them just to at least consider it in the process that sort of got over the hump of of the decision making process.
Speaker 9
Senator Laird, we have met with Caltrans twice, and we are planning to meet with them again. And we've explained the intent of the bill. We think that there's some flexibility built into the language. It allows them some ability to set these targets and and how they want to incorporate wildlife connectivity.
Speaker 4
In just to make a comment on the bill, I strongly support this. This is really a good effort and this has been an amazing progression because initially it was two places. It was sort of Highway 101 in Southern California and it was Highway 17 at Laurel Curve. And at Laurel Curve, Caltrans thought they were doing this great upgrade and they didn't realize there was this culvert underneath that the mountain lions had been using, and they closed it up. And so suddenly, lions were coming over the highway.
One was killed. There were some potential bad injuries of of humans that were drivers and other things, and it took the local land trust acquiring the right of way and it took Caltrans. It took a revision in the policy because they only would allow this for certain kinds of funding if it was with an endangered species as opposed to one that hadn't achieved that status. And so we rewrote the definition. It allowed that project to go ahead.
And then senator Stern, who's on this committee, did a later bill that incorporated it into the entire thing. And now we even have a pot for a San Andreas wildlife quarter that's in prop four. We have and I toured the one you referred to. That seems like a real possibility. There's Pacheco Pass.
There's Rocks Road, sort of San Benito, Santa Cruz, and many other places. And this policy needs to be in place to make sure that there's guidance, people know that it's the ethic that that we need to do it. And and you have a very impressive list of supports. At the appropriate time, I would be ready to make a motion.
Speaker 20
Thank you. I just wanna go back to my colleague's original question and confirm in a different way so I get the way I understand it. So right now, twelve fifty, this bill would create a formal published inventory wildlife connectivity needs for highway systems under Caltrans direction and authority and require performance targets, creativity, assets, wildlife, know, consultive role, joint discretion, decision making, all that stuff. But the concern from CBIA I mean, it's how that initial acronym is. Sorry.
The concern is from CBIA is that there are private residences and private properties alongside or next to adjacent to highway, quote, systems. And I know that the secret review for private private housing projects are near inventoried highway segments, and just wanna make sure that this bill particularly addresses just the highway system portion and nothing to do with private property Yeah. And and what CVIA would be building or working on. Like, they would and I get the backdoor thing that happened just last year to them But we assured them there was nothing, and all of a sudden, now there's additional fees to build housing when housing is more affordable or not more affordable. It makes it less affordable.
So I just wanna make sure this isn't a backdoor thing where locals are gonna be able to charge a fee to CBIA.
Speaker 9
Definitely not senator senator grove we worked with cbi a to limit it to just the transportation infrastructure and they reviewed the language and signed off on it.
Speaker 8
yes we're committed to doing that and frankly I was given my development background was pretty clear for me exactly what they were concerned about we have legal decisions senator d'Arlene was particularly aware of maybe senator cobalt as well going back for decades the dowland decision the dowland decision they've all been legal fights about this very issue about whether or not you can extend without compensation without compensation public projects into private property like this. So, it was very clear to me, I thought, that that was what the concern was when we first saw an opposition letter come in. We got ahold of them. My first reaction, as sometimes I guess I could be a little defensive, is don't worry. Read the bill more closely.
It's just public right away. You don't have to worry about the private property side. And then it occurred to me, why don't we just say that in express language that those kind of exactions and dedications are clearly excluded from the bill. I'm paraphrasing the amendment I wish I had.
Speaker 20
No that's okay I just want to make sure that you are going to specifically exclude that. Absolutely thank you.
Speaker 21
I' very glad to see this bill I think it was twenty something years ago I was in a race with a city council member in Davis. And, because we were close and and agreed on almost everything, the main issue in the race was the toad tunnel in Davis. And, It was the only thing we could find to not even really disagree on. It was just funny. Only in Davis.
But, it was an example of an early awareness of the issue. But, also one of the problems which was here's a bespoke project. No one had done the same project before, so you have it's out of sequence, it's because of public concern about a single species. I mean, there's a set of things that I think your bill is trying to get at that are really important about an overall an overall strategy, but also I think about achieving longer term cost reductions. If we have the framework and the road building companies, the suppliers, the industry knows, okay, this, you know, we've got to this is gonna be a regular thing, then it starts to get cheaper.
And it becomes easier for folks to deploy. I think it's really helpful in that space of just creating a, you know, adult kind of plan around this space. I think that's great. The other is, and you led with this, it's also number one in the three criteria that are in the bill, which is climate resilient wildlife corridors. That's number one.
Number two is avoiding collisions. Number three is our more standard approach, which is rescuing or restoring individual species. And, I was glad to see that because the third is important, but I think we've had the you know, we've had this conversation here before is that with climate change, we all predicted that there'd be massive ecosystem disruption in California. And so, the notion that we can try to rescue a single bird species that's in the Yolo Bypass when its prey cannot cross Highway 80, including its extra lane. It can't cross.
Our ability to simply think about our job as being conserving what was there before in exactly the place there where it was before, and it's well defined and well behaved, and we just, you know, we just need an extra sidewalk or something. That doesn't work. So, there's a need for some more more aspirational, more structured approaches on the ecosystem level, and maybe slightly less hubris on the individual species level. Not that they're trade they're they're not trade offs directly, but but they are in terms of our attention and resources. And so, this allows for both, which is appropriate.
But, I think that that you're spotlighting and the bill spotlighting of just in general climate resilient wildlife connectivity, which will include connectivity for for species and critters and microbes and stuff that are moving that we are not expecting and that may not be on the front page of my tiny local newspaper, but are just as important to the viability of future ecosystems, whatever they may be, in their balance. Seems like a well thought out approach. I appreciate the work you've been doing to deal with the issues that the BIA has raised.
Speaker 1
I won't repeat everything my colleague said but I appreciate the bill. I'm excited about the crossing that overlaps with our districts and just further integrating wildlife connectivity within caltrans will help to ultimately facilitate and speed up state highway projects. I would recommend I vote. Will you like to close?
Speaker 8
Thank you again Mr. Chair appreciate your comments appreciate everyone's comments appreciate the clarification questions thank the committee I do thank the committee for its work its approach and its acceptance largely of what we have come in with and again you have my commitment that representations we made about the amendment we' going to take next committee will be done will be handled so with that I respectfully ask for
Speaker 1
Senator laird has a motion. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Becker, aye. Sarto? Allen? Cobaldan? Aye.
Cobaldan, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove? Aye.
Laird?
Speaker 4
chair, I would like to move the entire consent agenda, which is one bill by senator Grove. Okay.
Speaker 1
I'm glad we're doing this first. Just to call So, that's four Was that Four to zero. Four to zero on that last bill. We will keep it open. We have a motion on the consent the entire consent calendar.
Speaker 20
Can I make a statement that that motion reflect the fact that the former secretary of natural resources moved that bill forward? And can I thank Catherine immensely from the bottom of my heart for all the hard work she put in on that piece of legislation?
Speaker 1
You may on both counts. Both counts. Okay. Let's go ahead and call the call the roll on the consent calendar.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker? Becker? Aye.
Scherato? Allen? Aye. Walden? Grove?
Aye. Grove? Aye. Laird? Aye.
Stern?
Speaker 4
And then, mister chair, we had one bill that we heard before we had a quorum, and that was item number eight by senator McGuire and I would move that bill.
Speaker 1
A good suggestion. We Okay. Good suggestion. So we have a motion from senator Laird on file item eight s p thirteen ninety three do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker? Aye. Sierto?
Allen? Cobaldan? Aye. Cobaldan? Aye.
Grove? Aye. Grove I. Laird I. Stern.
Okay.
Speaker 1
That is also sitting at four to zero. Keep the the roll open. We Energy. Okay. At this point, we are still looking for authors.
Okay. We're gonna reconvene, and we will start with senator Jones on filing five s b twelve twelve. Excellent.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair and members. I am here to present senate bill twelve twelve which will update California's antique antique way k k old current law to allow the importation and sale of kangaroo products. This bill applies only to qualifying kangaroo products harvested in compliance with existing wildlife protections in both Australian and international law, including the Endangered Species Act. Current code reads that it is illegal to import or sell products made from a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, vikuna, sea otter, free roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, elephant, or kangaroo. One of these things is not like the others.
Kangaroos in Australia are abundant with a population of over 35,000,000. There are four abundant non endangered species, the eastern gray kangaroo, the western gray kangaroo, the red kangaroo, and the common wallaroo. And harvesting is limited to the management of these species. Threatened or endangered species are never allowed for commercial harvest or hunting, and Australian law is especially strict in this area. This bill does not change that fact.
Among these four species that are allowed for commercial harvest in Australia, populations have remained steady for over forty years thanks to that country's stringent regulatory structure and world leading stewardship programs. In fact, there are so many ruse in the wilds of Australia, the country faces an overabundance problem It must manage through the active culling of kangaroo populations. The overabundance of kangaroos disrupts ecological balance and threatens animal welfare, not just for kangaroos, but also native vegetation, reptiles, insects, small mammals, and birds. To mitigate these issues, the Australian government issues a certain number of tags each year for the purpose of population control. Tag numbers will not and cannot change because of this bill.
That is simply not the way Australian law and stewardship practices work. In fact, not a single additional kangaroo will be harmed as a result of this bill. The yearly limits are based on scientific data that incorporates in a variety in environmental factors. The issuance of tags is never based on market demand for kangaroo products. When kangaroos are harvested in Australia, they are done so under the most humane wildlife management standards in the world.
The Australian Code of Practice was developed after years of research and consultation with leading scientists and veterinarians in Australia. Organizations in the development of the code of practice included the Australian Veterinarian Association, the royalty the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, and the country's two leading animal welfare organizations. Australian practices are the gold standard. California's ban does not impact existing harvesting practices or tag numbers, and this bill won't either. California's ban affects a loss of tax revenue and business income but has no effect on the harvesting of kangaroos.
Prior to the ban going into effect most recently in 2016, there were over 600 retailers in California selling kangaroo products. Most notably, boots and personal protective equipment for police and fire, food for dogs with severe food allergies, my and my personal favorite, of course, protective leather gear for motorcycle enthusiasts. These products shouldn't be illegal and Californians shouldn't have to take their money out of state to acquire them. California has fallen behind the rest of the nation and is the only state in the country, in The United States, to with this ban still in place. Today, we can take a few steps forward fixing with an I vote on s b twelve twelve.
Speaker 22
I I do not, sir. Just there you have letters of support from the Australian government and recent letters from Cal Chamber.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wanna add on in support? Alright. We'll go to lead opposition.
Do we have two lead opposition witnesses? Didn't come forward.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenny Berg, and I'm the California state director for Humane World for Animals. We work to ensure that wild animals are valued as individuals and as vital parts of our ecosystem, not merely reduced to products that fuel a global market. Kangaroos are an iconic species who are valued not just for their cultural and ecological role, but also for their intrinsic worth as a sentient animal. SB twelve twelve would California's market to products derived from the largest land based commercial slaughter of wildlife in the world, undermining our state's long standing ban on the trade of wildlife products.
Speaker 35
Right now, the sun came up in Australia and the commercial shooters are wrapping up a night of killing kangaroos in the Australian bush. Australia's commercial kangaroo industry kills over 1,000,000 animals annually. The Australian code of practice requires that young kangaroos who depend on their mothers be killed when their mother is killed. For Joey's still in their mother's pouch, this includes methods such as depredate decapitation, cervical dislocation, or a forceful blow to the head. For young Joey's on the ground, shooters are only required to make reasonable efforts to find them.
Speaker 12
And in practice, many are left to die of dehydration, starvation, or depredation or predation. An estimate of four hundred thousand Joeys are killed each year. A 2025 report showed that seventy eight percent of Americans surveyed find commercial kangaroo killings causes unnecessary animal cruelty. California has led on this issue since 1971, Although it has been contested in the past, we must uphold the ban on kangaroo products. California has the right and responsibility to keep cruel products off of our markets.
Please vote no on SB twelve twelve. Thank you.
Speaker 2
You senator. Hello chair members, s b twelve twelve would reverse protections this legislature put in place in 1971 and instead align California with an industry facing serious ethical scientific and regulatory concerns. In fact the new south wales parliament' official inquiry into the industry confirmed that population estimates the very data used to justify killing quotas lacks transparency and sound methodology. It also found that there are not adequate systems to monitor compliance with the code of practice at the point of kill, making welfare regulations meaningless, and that the widespread killing of kangaroos has a profound mental health impact on many Australians, particularly aboriginal communities for whom these animals hold deep cultural and spiritual significance. There are also public health concerns.
Speaker 9
Kangaroo meat is widely considered a high risk wild harvest product. Californians would be shocked to learn that our government would allow importing these high risk meat products that countries such as China and Russia do not allow. Meanwhile, major brands such as Nike, adidas, Gucci, Prada, and many others have phased out kangaroo leather from their products. California has been adding species to section 6,530 of the penal code, including seven species which we worked on with some of the remain China in 2019. We should not be taking animals off this list.
Speaker 2
Lastly, I'll read new south whales legislative council member Emma Hurst message to the committee. Kangaroos are brutally slaughtered and their babies are being bludgeoned to death as part of the commercial kangaroo industry. As an Australian MP, I know Australians are horrified by this cruelty and after visiting The USA, I I know Americans are equally horrified. We need politicians in The United States to work with us to end this industry not open up new markets for it. With that I respectfully ask for a no vote.
Speaker 11
Afternoon chair and members of the committee sousen madinat w strategies here on behalf of animal legal defense fund in opposition thank you.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members Jennifer Fearing on behalf of myself in strong opposition thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. We'll take it back to the committee. Comments? Thoughts? Seeing none.
Seeing none, I'll say for my own part, with great respect for the author, I know you're responding to your constituents who have interest in in some of these products and and that you were telling me earlier some of the the benefits and and maybe the not accessible and other you were mentioning hypoallergenic dogs and the things that were that were somewhat sympathetic. On the other hand, I I think the opposition made a very compelling case to me about why we should continue this this ban. I mean, has been fifty years. You know, others have tried in the past here and I know this is your your your final year and you're you're attempting this. But I I just it's not something I can support at this time.
So with that, would you like
Speaker 22
to close? Sure. Absolutely. And, you know, I understand the opposition's arguments and, you know, the points that they are making. I I think what's important to understand here is that kangaroo harvesting in Australia is highly regulated by the Australian government in very great detail.
Speaker 33
49 states in the Federal Trade Commission have come to the point where they have accepted the Australian regulation of this and are allowing these products to be imported to The United States. California is the only state that continues this antiquated, I think I said that correct, ban. And, Californians are left, you know, somewhat in the lurch on this because there are products that are important to your constituents and my constituents that are as a result of kangaroo harvesting. And, I think that California legislature and us as leaders of our state should give our constituents the same opportunities that 49 other states have and would ask for I vote on this.
Speaker 22
When you lift the calls and the rest of the members are here, can take a motion then.
Speaker 22
But then maybe I'll come back and close again. Yeah. Exactly. Just kidding. Alright.
Thank you all very much.
Speaker 24
Mister mister chair, if you're okay. Know. I'm in every committee today.
Speaker 24
your patience. Yes. Let's start the party, shall we? You've waited long enough. It's been a day and a half.
Speaker 1
Attorney Gonzalez, welcome. You are here to present file item 7 s B1268. Please go ahead. We're ready.
Speaker 24
Thank you. And good afternoon, mister chair and members. I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their work. I'm here to present s b twelve sixty eight, which will codify the goals and programs of the Outdoor For Alls initiative. The outdoors for all initiative was launched in 2021 to increase access to the outdoors, prioritize equity, and combat historical inequalities that have limited access for people with disabilities, lower income communities, communities of color, and much more.
Speaker 5
This initiative spans the 27 departments at the California Nat Resources Agency and focuses on achieving equitable access to outdoor recreation for all Californians, prioritizing programs and park expansions in underserved communities and coordinating efforts with the state's existing outdoor equity and conservation goals. Despite its impact, this initiative is not currently codified in state law meaning that it could be altered or undone by a future state administration. Testifying in support, I have Pedro Hernandez from Green Latinos, and I respectfully ask for an I vote on s p twelve sixty eight.
Speaker 25
Yep. Good afternoon. Possibly good evening to you all, everybody. My name is Pedro Arandes. I'm the California state director with the organization Green Latinos.
We work at the intersection of conservation and environmental justice to make sure that we can solve both people's problems and address our ecosystem decline as well too. I wanna start off with some of my own personal history where I grew up in Fresno County right at the intersection of Highway 41, a dairy feed lot, a junkyard, and an irrigation ditch where they sprayed pesticides on us. We technically did grow around grew up around a lot of nature, but the nature that was around us was not restorative and did not you know, support the resilience that California's climate policies and environmental policies are trying to support. But in my professional career, you know, I've worked in communities that are two streets, like the community of Tulleyville or in mega cities like in Los Angeles. And despite the regional vary variances, one trends cuts across every region of California, where Californians want healthy nature, but yet many of us do not have access to it.
And across the the the datasets, every metric shows that millions of Californians lack nature access. For example, 8,400,000 of Californians live less than half mile or sorry about that. I'm nervous. 8,400,000 Californians live more than half a mile away from a park. 24,000,000 Californians live in areas of less than three acres of parks per 1,000 people.
Speaker 26
More than 8,500,000 folks don't have access to a neighborhood park. And so, when we talk about the outdoors for all strategy, this is an innovative, cutting edge, leading initiative that coordinates the largest natural resource agency all towards the one goal of leveraging data, leveraging staff, and leveraging resources for outdoor equity. And we all know that when we close the nature gap in California, we support not only access, but we support public health, climate resiliency, biodiversity, and we support the multi benefit natures nature solutions that help California retain its leadership throughout the nation. So, this is a good project it's a good initiative. We hope this proposal can make it even better, and we can actually reach an outdoors for all for all Californians.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. You did an excellent job. We do have others in support who would like to add on support. Please come forward.
Speaker 17
Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon, California, the cosponsor for the bill. Thank you so much.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon, mister chair. Mike Sherif with Fans Law Government Affairs on behalf of River Partners in support.
Speaker 7
Afternoon. Griselda Chavez on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good afternoon. Kendra Begley on behalf of the California Association of Recreation Park and Districts in support.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon. Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Native Plant Society in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Do they anyone opposition to this bill? Anybody who does not like the outdoors? No. Just kidding.
Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Well, seeing none, I'll just say from my part, wanna really thank you for this bill. This is certainly one of my passions in this role as chairing this committee.
It's one of the things I most wanna do both in the building with with Drew letting us do, but also outside the building to promote outdoors for all. In my role as the on the board of UC Merced Foundation, I got to see students come and who had never been to any of our parks, certainly any of our national parks, and then participate in Yosemite program and then tell us in tears how they were gonna spend the rest of their lives working in in the in the forest service as a ranger. And I know the library pass is now one of the most successful pieces of of of policy that we've done to kinda enable folks to get out to it. But there's a lot more that we need to do to promote access. We spend so many so much money and time preserving these great outdoors.
We need to make sure that they're really accessible to all. Thank you for that. I'll be supporting the bill. Would you like to close?
Speaker 24
Thank you. I thank you, mister chair, for that. And I'm just grateful for green Latinos. In fact, I represent LA County in Southeast Los Angeles, some of the lowest park acreage per capita throughout the county. This is even more important for us to continue proliferate green space.
With that, I ask for an eye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a motion for senator Cabaldon. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker? Aye. Serrato?
Allen? Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon? Aye.
Grove? Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, I.
Speaker 1
So it's 30. We'll keep that bill on call. I see senator Achobog. You have several bills with us. Please come up when you're ready, and we'll start with s b at ten sixty one.
A little snack here. Great. Please go ahead.
Speaker 28
Thank you, senator Becker. So today, I'll be presenting three bills on regarding the Joshua Tree. Formal process to protect the Western Joshua Tree began in 10/15/2019 when the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the species as a threatened as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, CISA. In September 2020, the commission determined that the listing might be warranted and designated the tree as a candidate species providing temporary legal protection under CISA. Following this designation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Department conducted a status review, which it submitted in March 2022 concluding that the listing was not warranted.
According to the department, it recognized that the threats faced by this and this is from the executive summary from the California Department of the Department of State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife. And this is a report, to the Fish and Game Commission status review of March 2022, which stated that while the department recognizes the threats faced by the species and the evidence presented in favor of the petition action, the scientific evidence that is currently possessed by the department does not demonstrate that populations of the species are negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or the significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. The department recommends that the commission find the recommended action to list Western Joshua tree as threatened species not warranted. In addition to that, the Federal Register, volume a 88 number 46, Thursday, 03/09/2023, the the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services at the federal level concluded that after thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing Joshua trees as endangered or threatened species is not endangered or war or is not warranted.
So having said that, in June in June 2023 or in in in June 2022, the commission considered the department's report, but it could not be read could not reach decision. To resolve the administrative deadlock and provide a long term conservation framework, the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act was introduced in a budget trailer bill in 2023 and signed into law in July 2023. So based on those scenarios in which the both the the California Commission of Fish and Wildlife as well as the federal on the federal level, it was not considered a a threatened endangered species. The residents of the desert in district in Senate District 19 which I've inherited since 2024 with redistricting, it's been a great injustice to the folks out there being subjected to fees that are really not warranted and have no basis for it. So these bills are a product of those findings and and that realization and the impact that it's having on local residents.
So the first bill that we're gonna be reviewing today will be s b ten sixty one. Proud to presented, is a narrow and very practical bill that focuses on allowing property owners to relocate a limited number of Western Joshua trees without payment or fees or other mitigation when certain conditions are met. The goal of the bill is to incentivize the preservation of these trees rather even though they're not subject to extinction rather than the destruction. Right now, the definition of the word take as it pertains to the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is very broad and based on a framework that was built for wildlife that can be hunted or pursued, not for plant that stays rooted in the ground. The result is that even when a homeowner or small project is trying to save a tree by moving it a short distance, they can still be pulled into a full take permit process.
However, even inside the formal process, the true killing of a tree is not usually the result because the California Department of Fish and Wildlife often conditions the permit on relocating the tree instead of cutting it down. In other words, the practical outcome on the ground is already relocation, not destruction. SB ten sixty one simply recognizes the reality up front by making it clear that moving a tree within a limited commonly owned footprint should not trigger the same permitting burden as cutting it down. There is no net loss of a tree in that situation, and the law should recognize the difference between relocation and removal. Instead of requiring a take permit and then effectively issuing a relocation permit, this bill creates a streamlined process for homeowners to relocate trees in responsible way and allow CDFW to focus on cases where real loss is at stake.
This bill just seeks to clarify the law so that when a tree is being preserved and moved a short distance on commonly owned land, it is not regulated in the same way as a true take that removes trees from the landscape. SB ten sixty one keeps a meaningful protections in place but makes governments and the CDFW staff who are trying to do the right thing on the ground. With me today, I have Jennifer Cusack from Bighorn Desert View Water Agency and Chris from the Western Housing Communities Association to share their perspective and answer questions.
Speaker 1
Great. Just before we get to your witness, can we confirm you're taking the committee amendments on this bill on a file in one s p ten sixty one? Yes. I am. Okay.
Great please go ahead.
Speaker 17
Thank you good afternoon chair and members my name is jennifer cusack I'm the general manager of bighorn desert view water agency a very small water district in the Mojave and a lifetime resident of the Mojave Desert. I' here in strong support of s b ten sixty one this bill is critically important because it addresses real unintended impacts of the Western Josh Street conservation act on everyday homeowners while maintaining protections for a species that our community values and has long protected. In our region some homeowners have been straddled with thousands of dollars in fees related to the western joshua tree and work around it. Even in situations and most of the time in situations where these western joshua trees are still standing so just to do work around them they're paying fees this creates a serious burden particularly in the Mojave Desert where we are have a very disadvantaged community and housing is often we have affordability challenges in the desert adding high regulatory cost to routine home maintenance small scale development puts residents at even greater disadvantage s b ten sixty one provides common sense solutions it clarifies how the law applies to homeowners and allows reasonable relocation options making it possible for families to maintain and improve their homes while still protecting the trees.
Speaker 29
It is important to recognize the western joshua tree is prolific in our region. They are in large quantity across a very large diverse range documented by the California department of fish and wildlife March 2022 report on page 53 and it found it does not meet the criteria for listing under cesa. That said we support protecting the species as we have locally under local ordinance just much like the oak tree. The current framework has created confusion cost and unintended consequences without adding meaningful protection.
Speaker 29
Yes. So, this bill strikes a balance and and helps to fix some of the unintended consequences and I respectfully request your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Are there others who would like to add on in support? This is ten sixty one, first bill that we're doing. We have several folks.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon. Richard Filgas with the California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Chad Mays on behalf of the County Of San Bernardino, the Town Of Yucca Valley in support.
Speaker 28
Tim Worley on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance, and additionally as a courtesy on behalf of Palmdale water district San Bernardino County supervisor Don Rowe San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency and twenty nine Palms Water District. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Arruita de Silva in support I represent the Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Western Joshua Tree regulations thank you.
Speaker 32
Madeline Lavoie, local real estate broker and resident Biakabelli in support.
Speaker 20
Cassandra Moore on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Now we'll hear from opposition witnesses. Do we have lead opposition?
Speaker 27
Yeah. Actually, just Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, the Native American Land Conservancy with the amendments that have been taken. Appreciate the the fact that they've been offered and accepted. We remove our opposition.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well then, anyone else in opposition or wants to comment? Okay. We'll take it back to the committee. Would we have any comments on the committee?
No. Okay. Well, I wanna thank you for working with us. We know a couple other bills to discuss here, but you've indicated very clearly your passion on this issue and for the the impact on your constituents in in the region. We appreciate you taking the amendments and that is withdrawn opposition.
I'll be supporting this bill today. And I would love a a motion. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Consideration of a motion. Election? The opportunity to close. Did you wanna close on on this bill?
Speaker 28
I would love to an opportunity to close. So as as I stated earlier in my opening remarks, this is has been the the Joshua Tree Conservation Act has been one of the biggest injustices to the people of the desert that I represent. And I don't have words to to describe how appalled I was to see that something that based on what the commission on fish and wildlife as far as report went stating that it wasn't endangered and at the federal level in 2023 stating also that it wasn't endangered. And then to put place the conservation act in the in the budget trailer bill where it was didn't have an opportunity to be vetted and have a discussion on it has had great significant impacts on our residents in the desert. So with that, this simple bill is just a way to mitigate that injustice to those local residents in our in our communities.
And with that, s b ten sixty one is just a simple clarification, not a rollback of protections for the Western Joshua Tree. It reflects what already happens in practice when someone seeks to remove a tree. CDFW often requires relocation instead. This bill simply says that if a Western Joshua Tree is being preserved and moved a short distance uncommonly owned land, we should not treat it the same as a true take. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, you. Well, let's see if you have words for your next two bills on this topic. But listen, I, you know, I do wanna say, you know, in this committee and and in this body, we're always trying to strike the right balance. And, you know, there was a a move to to protect the Western Joshua Tree.
We we understand that, you know, this is you know, believe that this is a common sense fix in this bill. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Oh, so senator Stern moves the bill. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. Two to zero. Many to still weigh in on that one. Now we'll go to your second bill, s b ten sixty two.
Speaker 28
Thank you, mister chair and members. Now for the second bill, once again, the the fact that this would post forth with without the understanding that the Joshua Tree Conservation Act was placed in a trailer bill without actual evidence at the time to make it endangered. This second bill, ten sixty two, aims to make the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act workable for publicly owned utilities and other public agencies that deliver water, power, sewer, and communication services. This bill requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to consider setting mitigation fees proportionate to the impact of a project and consider using tiered fees that correlate with the project size, type, and other criteria. Most importantly, this is not a brand new idea.
The Western Joshua Tree conservation plan that CDFW developed already addresses project level permitting and coordinated project wide avoidance, mini minimization and mitigation measures. SB ten sixty two simply elevates that existing practice, current practice, from guidance and clearly outlines it in statute. So, we're just codifying practice already. So, agencies know that option is available and that CFW has explicit authority to use it when circumstances are appropriate. Under current law, even routine upgrades can trigger full mitigation fees and broad avoidance buffers for every affected tree, and those costs end up on ratepayers bills.
And those costs just for the record could vary anywhere between $500 up to $5,000 depending on the location of the of the bill. And even the little buds, the little spuds are are also have a fee on them. This bill clarifies that the CDFW may approve project wide measures and adjust overall fees for a project and does not alter the underlying conservation framework. With me today, I have Jennifer Cusack from Bighorn Desert View Water Agency to share her experience with this very process and answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Great. Again, would like to add just for clarity. Do you accept the committee amendments on this bill? Yes. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. Thank you chair and members. I' Jennifer cusack general manager bighorn desert view water agency and a community member and I have experience with public infrastructure projects including water and electricity and I' here in support strong support for s p ten sixty two This bill is essential because it will correct and bring clarity to the Western Josh Street conservation act as it' impacting public water systems and critical infrastructure. Today even routine infrastructure work like replacing aging water lines and existing roadways maintaining systems and implementing groundwater recharge projects can trigger substantial mitigation fees and complex permitting requirements. We already go through sequel process on our projects and have mitigated for the Western Josh Tree and relocated them in the past.
These additional costs for these fees go directly to our rate payers and we' trying to keep the cost of water down in our disadvantaged desert communities this matters because every dollar counts. SB ten sixty two provides practical solution by allowing the department to consider making fees proportionate to the impact of a project. This is critical water infrastructure projects should be able to move forward quickly and cost effective especially when they' maintaining existing systems. Equally important this bill recognizes fees should be proportionate one size does not fit all. If the long term risk of the western josh tree is driven by climate change over a one hundred year horizon it is not reasonable to shift that cost burden on to small local water systems and the rate payers today SB ten sixty two ensures we can continue to deliver safe reliable and affordable water while maintaining protections for the species.
This is about balance practically and fairness Practicality and fairness. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Chad Mays on behalf of the the county of San Bernardino and the town of Yucca Valley in support.
Speaker 31
Tim Worley on behalf of the community water systems alliance and additionally again as a courtesy to Palmdale water district San Bernardino County supervisor Don Roe, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and twenty nine palms water district all in support. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Rory to the Silva on behalf of the Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Western Joshua Tree regulations. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon mr chair and senators rosanna carvacho elliott here on behalf of the california groundwater coalition also in support thank you.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon. Kim Delfino on behalf of defenders of wildlife, California native plant society, center for biological diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, the native American land conservancy. With the amendments taken to this bill, we remove our opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Senator Grove.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I just applaud the author for bringing this bill forward. I too represent that area. And it's really disturbing to me that somebody trying to even and I realize it doesn't have very much to happen with this bill, but just family income a family of four that has $57,000 in year and just to hook up to city water would cost them almost $200,000. It's crazy to me that this district produces 11,000,000 tons of cement excuse me 11,000,000 tons of cement in California 9,000,000 come from this district there you have a mining permit which means that you were gonna disturb the land and then reclaim the land after you're done mining and they just had to pay almost $200,000 to relocate Joshua trees that were within the mining area because it was within a 40 foot of where the trucks would go.
Speaker 20
And I just it is miles upon miles upon miles over an hour drive away from the national forest, And I think it's a very a very good approach about trying to address some of the issues. And if my colleague, the former secretary of natural resources, was here, I would give him a bad a bad time about this being a succulent and not a plant. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I've heard that debate before here in the legislature. Okay. Well, for for my part, again, you know, appreciate your efforts to find solutions for this district issue. And and I just wanna again say for the record that the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is not perfect. It does remain a high priority for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the department is taking multiple steps right now, to improve it.
The goal is to provide for the conservation of Western Joshua Tree, so a permanent listing under the California Endangered Species Act is not required for the future. I would like to thank the author for accepting the committee amendments, which require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to consider the fees charged are proportionate to the impact of the project. I think that's reasonable. Affordability is critical. I would also encourage you to continue to work closely with Department of Fish and Wildlife on your legislation.
With that, I mean, I vote with the amendments. We have a do we have a motion? So moved. Senator Grove moves the bill. The motion here is, do you pass as amended to appropriations?
Oh, we'll give you an opportunity to close again.
Speaker 28
That'd be great. Thank you. I just wanna highlight, know, you know, don't have all members here but senator grove just just arrived and I just wanted to highlight that in my opening remarks, before presenting all three bills, mentioned in red the findings under the the Fish and Wildlife Commission in which it stated that according to the scientific evidence that the currently possessed at the time in 2022, the department did not demonstrate that the public regulation of the species are negatively negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger or becoming extinct throughout all of the significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. The department recommends that the commission finds that the recommended action to the life Western Joshua tree as a threatened species was not warranted. And that was on the commission here in California, ma'am.
And then on the federal level, it was also found in the federal registered in 03/09/2023. The Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service at the federal level stated that after a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing Joshua Tree as endangered or threatened species is not warranted. So not only at the state commission level, ma'am, but also at the federal level. And yet we are succumbing in all of these water infrastructures, any any business or any private residence subject to these fees on something that doesn't didn't have scientific evidence behind it. And yet, we've passed the conservation act under a trailer bill without the ability to be vetted or have any justification for it.
So based on all of that, we're trying to mitigate these these injustices to the local residents in the desert with these three particular bills, ma'am. I apologize. So with that thank you, mister chair. Members, you may not have the Western Joshua Tree in your district, but you all have ratepayers who depend on affordable, reliable utility service. SB ten sixty two keeps strong protections in place while giving public agencies a clear lawful way to negotiate projects, specific conditions that make their services affordable and more predictable.
And with that, you know, just trying to make mitigate the injustices to the folks on something that was not vetted and placed into law. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Good. Well, you restate some stuff for senator Grob. I won't restate all my points, but, you know, they did not advance it from for candidacy based on the Western Joshua Tree conservation act. I think they are taking feedback and and input, but we again, we understand your passion to take action now given the impact on your constituents.
I'm going to have an I vote the the recommendation, the motion from senator Grove is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Becker, aye. Sayarto? Allen? Alvin? Grove?
Grove? Grove? Grove? Grove? Grove?
Laird? Stern? I. Okay.
Speaker 1
30. That is on call. Would you like to present your final bill, s b ten sixty three?
Speaker 10
Yes, sir. And once again, considering the fact that, you know, I I was appalled to to learn of these issues that happened in the district that I've inherited as of 2024 in which we find these injustices, people being you know, having to pay all of these fees, permitting fees. So having said that, having made that case, I'm pleased to present s b ten sixty three, which aims to ensure that no Californian is left without basic utilities or a safe capital home because of a permitting delay under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. It creates a narrow expedited pathway for projects related to residential electricity, gas, water, sewer, telecom, and wildfire hardening work move forward without prohibited fees, which once again, for the record, have no basis, no scientific basis based on the California commission report or on the federal level department findings. These are mitigation when a Western Joshua tree is in the way.
Speaker 28
Today, a homeowner who needs to connect to the grid or fix a failing septic system may have to wait weeks, pay significant mitigation fees, and even take responsibility for relocating and maintaining a tree for the rest of its life. In some cases, that has meant families cannot afford to complete basic work to keep their homes safe and functional. SB ten sixty three allows the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a permit within thirty days without fees, they're not justifiable technically, or added mitigation when the work is necessary to install or maintain life sustaining services for residents. It's also very important that we look at the underlying evaluation of the Western Joshua Tree and understand the context in which these trees are living. In its 2022 status review, CDFW acknowledged potential threats to species such climate changes, development, and wildfire.
But the CDFW also found that the Western Joshua Tree is currently widespread and abundant, and that scientific evidence does not show populations negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout its range in the foreseeable future, quote, unquote. Using the best available science, state and federal analysis of the Western Joshua Tree found that listing the species as endangered or threatened is not warranted. Understanding that context, it is clear that s p ten sixty three does not open the door to large scale habitat loss. The bill simply says that in the limited circumstances where a tree stands between a family and access to power, clean water, wastewater service, or fire safety, human health and safety should come first. With me today, I have Madeline Lavoie, a resident of Yucca Valley, and Chad Mays on behalf of the town of Yucca Valley to share their perspective and answer the questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Welcome both. You'll be two minutes. Would you like to start?
Speaker 32
Good afternoon, chair. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Madeleine Lavoie. I'm here today as a resident and a local real estate broker in Yucca Valley. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Morongo Valley communities in support of SB ten sixty three.
The Western Josh Tree study has had unintended consequences, for the property owners, and this bill will help. First, our community wants to protect our trees. We know how what we're doing. We've been build building and developing alongside these majestic Josh trees for seventy years plus. They are already everywhere, including a lot of baby trees.
Big and beautiful hearty trees are lining the main commercial highway even along the sidewalks. I know the community. I mean, personally, not professionally. I raised my children in Yucca Valley, my grandchildren. We love our trees.
Most of us have dozens in our yards. We have had huge issues due to the regulations of the Joshua trees for three years, and we need relief. The fees are outstanding. In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Josh trees in their property. That means almost every home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge.
Speaker 12
Installing a new waterline, sewer line, septic system, a well, gas line, electrical, or hardening against wildfire. Any of it can trigger fees that runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. These are life sustaining services needed for residential properties. Most residents simply can't afford it. Retired people, fixed income people, young families, people just trying to do the right thing, buried in paperwork and fees that they never expected or voted for.
Speaker 32
The fees are unmanageable for most residents. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it. This is a big deal. People are asking for relief.
I invite any of you to come visit my neighborhood and understand firsthand more of the financial impact this study has caused to our local community. We we need a permit without being charged fees by the state. Thank you assemblymember Wallace and state senator Joe Bogue. We ask the committee for an yes today.
Speaker 30
Thank you mister chair and senators My name is Chad Mays. I represent the town of Yucca Valley and I'm here today because our residents need your help. I've got a script here. I'm gonna come off the script here just for the purposes of of time. You know, the town of Yucca Valley is my hometown.
It's where I grew up. I was the mayor. I was a council member there. It's great to be able to to now be a contract lobbyist, but I can tell you from what you've heard from the the senator and what you've heard from from other folks here today, the residents in that town desperately need some help. They desperately need some relief.
Speaker 29
The existing single family homeowners, which is a little bit worse the other two bills, if you just give me a little bit of to talk about those other two bills, it's really the goal than the focus. We also need some focus as well in regards to providing public works infrastructure. The one line that I have here, and I'm not sure I'll be as articulate, so I'm gonna read this, but we just think about this for a little bit in regards to the Western Joshua Conservation Act. A law designed to protect a beloved species has made that species in the eyes of desperate homeowners a problem to be solved rather than a treasure to be kept. That is the very definition of an unintended consequence.
Speaker 30
The Western Joshua Conservative Act was working with the department and others over time was to try to solve a real problem, but not yet definitely needs to be fixed. I'm thankful to the committee. I'm thankful to the opposition as well because I think they understand this, and we look forward to continuing to work to try to fix this imperfect bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your work representing that district for many years. Now we will have anyone else voice in support please come forward.
Speaker 31
Thank you chair for the third time to more on behalf of the community water systems alliance as well as Palmdale water district San Bernardino County supervisor Don row San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and the twenty nine Palms Water District. We urge your aye vote.
Speaker 29
Jennifer Cusack, general manager, Bighorn Desert View Water Agency and a lifetime Yucca Valley resident in support.
Speaker 37
Ben Turner from Maxim Advisors on behalf of California Building Industry Association and the High Desert Water District.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Senators Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Mission Springs water district also in support. You.
Speaker 30
Hello. Rory to the Silva on behalf a longtime Yucca Valley resident and on behalf of the Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Western Joshua Tree regulations. Thank you everyone.
Speaker 27
Kim Delfino. On the behalf of defenders of wildlife, California native plant society, center for biological diversity, desert land trust, and the native American land conservancy. These organizations are working on the conservation of the iconic western joshua tree. The joshua tree is threatened with extinction due to a combination of factors. Loss of habitat is certainly one but also the science shows this is a tree or species that will disappear due to the impacts of climate change and the western chahshua tree conservation act was enacted as a way of trying to facilitate avoiding listing and trying to get ahead of what we see as an inevitable decline of the species.
I had an opportunity to talk to senator Ochoa Bogh last week and I really appreciated the conversation. I really respect her level of concern around the western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. But, we believe that the issues that she's raised, which she's raised some valid issues, can be addressed through the bills that we've already talked about today, but also the existing tools in the act and the administrative processes that are going on right now at the department of fish and wildlife. SB ten sixty three would allow for the destruction of Joshua trees for the building of infrastructure and we've listed through what that infrastructure is for. The definition is actually quite broad and that is a big concern to us and it would allow that destruction to happen without any avoidance, minimization or mitigation which we think would really upset the design of this act.
I think the committee analysis does a very good job of walking through the explaining of how that would fracture the current framework. The Joshua Tree Act already authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to delegate permitting authority to cities and counties, particularly for housing, infrastructure, and public works projects, allowing local agencies to issue take permits concurrently with project approvals such as CEQUA, which would accelerate timelines. However, none of the local governments have availed themselves of that. CDFW also is going through a regulatory process
Speaker 27
can shut ground. Anyone I will go fairly fast. I don't think anyone's behind me. CDFW also has a regulatory process underway doing a programmatic EIR for the permitting program and that is supposed to be finished by the end of the year and they also have a fee setting adjustment process which we have testified at and we expect will be completed by the end of the year saying that we believe that the fees for single family residents need to be drastically reduced if not eliminated. We believe that there's ongoing processes right now to address these issues and because of that we do not believe that this bill as currently written have to continue to oppose it.
Thank you.
Speaker 20
I don't I don't have questions. And, I just question senator Allen on something. Driving over 178 past, Lake Isabella, thousands upon thousands of Joshua trees. I give senator Laird a hard time. I sent the videos to senator Becker just now.
I bet within a two mile radius of driving and videotaping there, you could count over 200 Josh 200,000 Joshua trees. They're everywhere, all up and down the landscape of high mountain tops. Again, far from the National Forest. Driving through there, you will see sporadic houses that that have 25 Joshua trees in their front yard. There's no way somebody could connect to city water and pay the mitigation fees for that.
And I appreciate you working with local residences and at least making an effort to make sure that these families that they're out in the desert for a reason. There's very few jobs out there, and they built their house out there around the Joshua Tree. They respected it. I deeply respect what former assembly member Chad May said that, you know, people in that area, they did treasure the Joshua Tree, and now it's a burden and a hindrance and a detriment to their lifestyle. They can't get water deliveries.
They can't drive on their driveway. And that's a a freedom that we're upending on the people that miss Ochoa Bogue represents. And where do you live? Can I ask you that question?
Speaker 27
I live in Sacramento, but I will say that for my thirty years, I've spent an enormous amount of time down in the desert working on the salt and sea, the desert renewable energy conservation plan, desert tortoise conservation. I've spent a a I don't live there. No. But my husband probably felt like I spent more time there than I Okay.
Speaker 20
But when you built your home or you live in your home now, you didn't have to mitigate hundreds of thousands of dollars for for a tree being in your front yard. You were able to connect to city water. I submit to you, mister chair, and I know you have a no recommendation on this bill. This state is very diverse. You live in Menlo Park.
I had a witness that lived in your district that had a catastrophic event in your district that you supported a bill earlier. And I just bring that up because this district is senator Ochoa Bogue's district, and she's trying to defend the people that elected her to be here to defend and protect her district. And with all due respect, I don't think someone from Menlo Park should tell her that she doesn't have the ability to do that. And her bill that she is presenting is based on the contest constituents that elected her to do her job to defend her district. Now you don't have a lot of Joshua trees in Menlo Park, but we have hundreds of thousands of them in this area, in the Yucca Valley area.
And I'm not saying I've been to the Joshua Tree National Forest. It's gorgeous. It's beautiful. We wouldn't we would fight to the just alongside all of you to preserve that. But having this these Joshua trees everywhere, and if you watch those videos, you'll see how many Joshua trees there are just on a two mile drive.
And they're all over the Yucca Valley area. They're all over I mean, they're everywhere. And as soon as one of those seedlings drop, they sprout. So you might have one in your yard when you build your house, and by the time two or three years goes by, you might have fifteen or 16 because the wind blows and puts those seedlings down. And now we're having to mitigate, pay to have them removed, pay to relocate them, pray to observe them, and make sure that they're not dead.
If they are dead, you have to pay somebody to go out there and keep telling you they're dead for the next year, and it costs money for a scientist to do that. And to put parameters on individuals who are just trying to live their life and live in their home and be represented by an incredible woman sitting before you to defend her district is crazy that we don't take that into consideration that this is a district bill and it's not affecting the the national forest.
Speaker 1
We did just vote on two bills forward on this topic focused on homeowners. And, you know, unfortunately, this is a committee vote, so I don't get to decide. Everybody gets to weigh in here. So any other comments, senator Allen?
Speaker 23
I'd love to just ask the opposition witness for a response because I mean she's been talking to us quite a bit about her sense of onerous rules associated with Joshua trees. Yeah. Senator Grove, my colleague. Because Senator Grove also represents areas that have a lot of Joshua trees. I'd love to get your thoughts on how we should be balancing these kinds of residents concerns with the concerns that you've raised.
Speaker 23
she doesn't live there, doesn't mean mean, like That is true. You guys have the coastal act, impacts the coast, and yet everyone gets to vote on that.
Speaker 27
thank you for the question. As I already said, will admit the implementation of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, it's been a little rocky for sure. Part of the problem is that when we wrote and let me also be clear, I was not part of the drafting of that act. It was a trailer bill that was enacted. The act itself has an issue in that we actually when we charge the department of fish and wildlife to implement that act, we provided no fees and no funding to the department to implement that act.
That has created an issue because basically the people that work in the Department of Fish and Wildlife down in Regions 4 and Region 6 are having to take on an additional responsibility on top of all the other things that we ask them to do. So, yes, that I think has been complicating.
Speaker 23
Also So, the lack of our funding is required to pass on these fee funds?
Speaker 27
We're not staffing the implementation properly. The other issue is that we asking local governments to delegate and we're asking them to take on this authority, yet there's no funding that's been made available to them to help alleviate whatever the cost pressure would be on them I would agree that' an issue. The fees as they were set I think that it was well intentioned it has not played out the way I think people intended it to and because the department of fish and wildlife is going through the fee adjustment process which we desperately do need to have completed they are statutorily required to have that done by the end of the year and we have testified in the public hearing or public meeting that they' had so far and we will continue to tell the department this We think they should be reducing the fees for single family residences, for sewer hookups, for the very issues that the senator has raised here. We just think And why you doing that? Make sense.
Well, they're going through the process now. They will complete it at the end of the year. The way that this if this bill becomes law or, you know, the fee issue becomes law, they would it would require the department to start over again. So, we we believe that this is being dealt with administratively. And then, with respect to the permitting, since the local governments don' want to take on the permitting responsibility the department has started the programmatic EIR process and they' issued a notice of preparation they' going through the process we believe when that' done it' create a streamlined permitting process for the types of projects that we've been talking about here today.
We just think that those are issues that will get addressed. The act was enacted in 2023. It started in 2023 or 2022. I can't remember. Was it '22?
We're only a few years in on a brand new and novel approach on how to do this. I think that it it has had growing pains and it is and people are trying to adjust and fix the issues. We just think the flexibility to fix these issues already existing in the act and with these administrative processes.
Speaker 23
I guess my question, I suppose, maybe I direct this to both you, Kim, and also the chair. If we're going to follow the Chair's recommendation to oppose this bill, and I take the Chair's point we just were supporting the first two bills on this topic, which provide some relief to residents on this with regards to Joshua Treece. What is the plan? What do we need to do collectively to make sure there's better funding so as to both offset the cost of some of these fees and get better staffing? Is there a work in progress on this that we need to get behind more aggressively?
Because that would seem really dissatisfying to be kind of passing on our lack of investment and focus on this issue onto the onto the homeowners.
Speaker 23
would you see opportunity? I mean, it seems like there's opportunity for us to work together Yeah. With the senators.
Speaker 1
Other bills in the assembly as well coming over here as well, also on this topic, but in addition to the work that's being going on right now at CDFW as well.
Speaker 27
Right. But I I will say that there is another opportunity through the budget process. I think on May 7 the budget sub two will hear the issue of open positions that are slated to be reduced at the department of fish and wildlife including positions in Region 4 and Region 6. The loss of those positions does have an impact on all of the work they have to do in those regions including the western joshua tree conservation act. I would say when the senate and legislature works on the budget and they consider whether or not to eliminate those open positions, and at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it's a 164 positions, that this is something they think about when making that decision.
When you eliminate those positions, you are basically saying, well, you have to do all of the work with what with the existing people you have, and we're not gonna be helping you out.
Speaker 23
And they're basically then so so then her residents are kinda less stuck. Yeah. That's really dissatisfying. I'm happy to stand with the chair on this bill, but I do think that we all have to commit ourselves to addressing this budget issue over there. It sounds like there' common ground.
I think we have to figure out a way to do it meaningfully so as to provide some relief to these residents.
Speaker 1
Thank you. With that would you like to close? Senator grove one more question.
Speaker 20
I was looking online in the tree fees for mitigation or removing a tree is 150 to $2,526.00 9 at the highest and with higher numbers for every inch after the meters, the five meters that are acceptable under the twenties $2,609. Most
Speaker 20
the trees in that area are in the one to five meter, like one meter to five meters. Because some of them are pretty tall. Some of them are over five meters, which is a higher price. Let's take the middle ground, $521 to $1,075 per tree that's removed for these houses. Where does that money go?
Speaker 27
Any of the fees collected, they go into the fund at the department of fish and wildlife, and that money is supposed to be used to pay for a land acquisition.
Speaker 20
So the residents of senator Ochoa Bogue's district are fully funding the entire land acquisition because all of these trees are in her district?
Speaker 27
I don't exactly know how it all breaks out, but any project that is taking trees has to pay fees into that fund. It could be a large solar project. It could be a single family residence. It all goes into that fund, and then the Department of Fish and Wildlife is supposed to be going out and acquiring lands for mitigation, for the collective take of all those trees. The idea is that with the conservation plan, that they are supposed to be identifying some of the highest value areas and sort of the sum of the parts is greater than the individual so that they would be, instead of piecemealing the mitigation, they would be maybe buying larger chunks of land.
The first the one and only acquisition they've done so far, which is an issue of that we've raised with this bill with the act. There was a 100 acres in conjunction with the native american land conservancy.
Speaker 20
I understand that. I understand what you' trying to do but I' trying to explain to you and you just basically admitted to it and to make the point is that Sacramento County doesn't pay for the mitigation. Sacramento County doesn't pay into the fish and wildlife for to acquire land for acquisition. There's very little in Kern County. There's none in Tulare County.
There's none in Fresno County. No one other than miss Ochoa Bogue's district residents, and it's an unfair tax on the residents that live in that district that are funding the mitigation in order to hook up to city water.
Speaker 27
So this is why I don't think we're disagreeing in that we're saying we think those fees should be dropped or eliminated.
Speaker 20
There's one cement plant there that funded all that provided all the cement to SoFi Stadium. How do you plan to build SoFi Stadiums and other infrastructure projects like high speed rail when all the cement comes from this one plant who can't stay in business because they don't have the money to mitigate the mold?
Speaker 20
And what I'm saying is is that it doesn't affect you and it doesn't affect the rest of this state. It affects her district and we're paying for it. Our constituents are funding this entire project for the state of California and it's not right.
Speaker 27
plan. What I would let me just say that, again, I appreciate the issues that have been raised, and I think we are working very hard to try to find solutions that are finding that are alleviating the impacts to folks that are disproportionately bearing them particularly single family residences. We do understand that issue. Large projects is a different issue but even with that I think this is going to be an issue that gets revisited with the fee adjustment. Can we more equitably design the fees that are being imposed.
And I think that this is a good thing that the act was written to allow us to do that right now.
Speaker 28
I just want to reiterate for, you know, for senator Allen that did not come here. You know, we're we're subjecting my constituents to fees on something that both the commission on fishing on fish and game commission stated that there was no no evidence to support that this was a threatened species. The commission said it wasn't. The federal government stated in there in the federal register, the Department of Interior, that after thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing Joshua trees as endangered, threatened species is not warranted. And yet, the legislature passes the conservation act through the budget trailer bill with no vetting being completed, just passes it in that on there as as endangered species.
There is no scientific evidence for that. And yet, my residents responsible to pay all of these mitigation fees, whether they're small or large, they're subject to something that has no scientific foundation behind it. There's nothing. Nothing behind it. There's nothing that actually allows it for them to be able to justify the fact that they're being subjected to these fees.
How can we right now, the legislature, the committee has the opportunity to remedy a great injustice to the people of Senate District 19th Of The Desert. I'm hoping that, you know, the chair, the members here will reconsider the the no recommendation on this and and understand that there is absolutely no basis for this. We're subjecting these people on something that is baseless, based on a trailer on a budget trailer bill with no scientific evidence behind it. And I just wanna note for the for the record that I am not I love nature. I I'm an empath.
I find healing in nature. I I am carrying a bill to, you know, designate the the monarch butterfly as the the state butterfly in here. I'm very much pro nature, but I do think that this is a great injustice. And all we're trying to do is that six or ten seven s b ten sixty three is incredibly narrow. It just creates a pathway for families to secure basic life sustaining services without being priced out of the state.
I just want to reiterate that the CDFW's own science says that the species is widespread and abundant and that the listening My clear. That's it is point. Threatened or endangered
Speaker 28
I'm just closing my remarks. Was not warranted to begin with. Within that context, this bill keeps the broader conservation framework intact but makes it clear that as lawmakers, we value the health, safety, and quality of life of all Californians. You may not see this exact situation in your district, but my hope is that your vote reflects how you would stand up for your own constituents in their basic needs and access to services were on the line. With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote, sir.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, I appreciate it. And understand your passion. Just you know, we've the three bills, we've put it right, three closes, so some of the same steps again were repetitive. But I I appreciate that.
You understand you and I have spent a considerable amount of time on this, meeting on this. Have we not? We've have been Yes. Sympathetic. So I just do wanna say senator Grove, because I know we've we have Joshing, know, as we say between here, remember when you were you were saying in our some of our previous things that we had no cows in my district, and then we pointed out that we had thousands of cows in my district.
And you were kind enough to acknowledge that on the floor of the of the senate here. But listen, we do all have to weigh in on all these bills. Again, I supported two of these bills with amendments. I cannot support this bill today because we found that and, you know, in consultation with the committee staff that this was just too broad. That, you know, the definitions were incredibly broad in this bill, and that's why we'll not be supporting this one today.
But I think as we've discussed, this will be discussion point throughout the rest of this year with the legislature. I've also spent, in addition to you, a number a lot of time with Assembly Member Wallace who will have other bills on this as well, and Assembly Member Carrillo. So I think we are trying to find the right balance. I do understand what the feelings of the district. We want people to be advocates for this species and not feel like this is a burden.
So, with that, do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Okay. So, the the motion would be to pass the appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? No. Becker, no. Sarto? Allen?
Cavaldin? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Laird?
Stern? No. Stern? No.
Speaker 1
Okay. So that is no. One to two. And we'll keep that one open. Thank you.
Okay. Senator Allen, would you like to present your bill? We have you up for SB thirteen eighteen. Alright. Yes.
Speaker 23
Enormous housing challenges in our coastal communities. Rents are rising. Vacancy rates are extremely low. Working families are increasingly being priced out. Folks are being priced out.
So this bill addresses a fundamental mismatch that exists between current coastal policy and today's rental, today's housing realities. So when the coastal act was adopted, the rapid growth of short term rentals simply wasn't contemplated. This was in the late, very, very different time, long before these online tools for short term rentals. And that market, of course, has now expanded to a scale and scope that was really starting to directly reshape coastal housing supply. And we've seen in many coastal communities even a small number of homes being converted into short term rentals that that can then have a real outsized impact on the community.
These are some of the tightest housing markets in the state. When units are removed from the long term rental market, it drives up rents, it reduces options for local residents. And at the same time, the idea that short term rentals provide affordable coastal access really doesn't reflect reality. Many of these units are high cost homes serving higher income visitors, often priced at levels comparable to hotels, the fancy hotels, really out of reach for average Californian. So, in practice, they're they're simply, you know, not functioning as a meaningful affordable access tool.
What they are doing, however, is reshaping the balance between housing and visitor serving uses in so many of our coastal communities. So homes that could be supporting local workforce housing are increasingly used for short term stays because that's more profitable. This is now contributing to longer commutes, workforce shortages, increased pressure on inland communities. It's also leading to a decline in full time residents and community stability over time. So this bill seeks to establish a clear framework as to how unhosted short term rentals should be considered along California's coast, specific to to to giving local communities some additional rights associated with the the regulation of these these unhoused short term rentals as long as they're meeting certain standards associated with visitor serving use and housing needs.
The the challenge, of course, is that without this guidance, short term rentals will continue to drive rents higher, constrain housing markets, displace lower income residents that support coastal communities. With me to support this bill, have Juan Munoz, who's political coordinator with Unite Here Local eleven, also Sylvia Soleys Shah from the city of Santa Monica.
Speaker 1
Just to confirm, so the amendments they're, I think, author amendments are
Speaker 23
are your amendments? Yes. Yes. We are we're taking them. I know we've done it in close Right.
Coordination coordination and cooperation with the committee. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 15
Great. Good afternoon, chair Becker and vice chair Sallarto and members of the committee. My name is Juan Munoz and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local eleven. Our union represents hospitality workers across Coastal California. These are the workers who sustain the coastal economy, but too many cannot afford to live near where they work.
We appreciate the coastal commission's long standing role in protecting access and balancing competing priorities. SB thirteen eighteen builds on that mission by addressing a growing challenge, the loss of long term housing due to unhosted short term rentals. There's growing consensus supported by research and local experience then unhosted STRs are not reliably providing low cost accommodations and are contributing to housing pressures. We've met with environmental partners and took their concerns seriously resulting in the in the amendments to this bill. We are committing to continuing to work together, but what we are hearing clearly is that there is no consistent framework for local communities today on this topic.
Santa Monica shows a problem. The city adopted one of the strongest STR laws in the state, but has not been enforced in the coastal zone because it lacks an approved permit. That means strong local policies are effectively on hold due to uncertainty. This bill provides that necessary clarity. It does not mandate bans.
Speaker 23
It does not affect hosted home sharing. It simply affirms that when a local government restricts on hosted STRs, that decision can stand. Importantly, the idea that these units provide affordable access is not supported by the data. Less than 10% of an unhosted coastal STRs qualify as low cost and they are contributing to rising rents and displacement. This is also a workforce issue.
Speaker 15
Coastal economies rely on workers in hospitality, retail, and other industries. When housing is converted into tourist use, those workers are pushed farther away or forced out entirely. A coastal economy cannot function if the people who sustain it cannot afford to live there. SB thirteen eighteen draws a clear line. Housing should first serve the people who live and work in our communities while still preserving access to the coast.
We respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon chair and members Sylvia Soleisha here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica. Santa Monica is known for its beaches with miles of white sand which draw millions of visitors every year. For decades the city has worked hard to enhance and protect our beach by reducing plastic pollution improving water quality and creating more recreational opportunities. We also have projects under way to address coastal sea level rise and flooding we take our responsibility as a coastal steward very seriously. At the same time Santa Monica has long supported efforts to increase and protect affordable housing in the city.
Currently the city authorizes a form of short term rentals known as home sharing wherein a resident is free to host visitors for compensation for a period of less than thirty one days as long as the resident and visitor are both present in the home. We believe this strikes an important balance by enabling current and prospective residents to supplement their income through home sharing while ensuring that the city's housing units particularly affordable multifamily housing stock is not converted into de facto hotels leading to tenant displacement. For these reasons we are pleased to support s b thirteen eighteen.
Speaker 15
Good evening, chair and members. Connor Gassman on behalf of Unite Here International Union in support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good evening, mister chair and members. Camille Wagner representing Airbnb. SP thirteen eighteen would require the California coastal commission to automatically approve coastal development permits and local coastal programs that restrict on hosted short term rentals along the coast effectively removing the commission's ability to act as a check on local government that want to eliminate affordable overnight accommodations. Further the bill would prohibit the commission from considering the full range of existing visitor serving accommodations within the coastal zone. This approach contradicts one of the central tenants of the coastal act maximizing public access to the coast for all Californians.
Speaker 39
Local agencies do not need further help in severely restricting short term rentals in the coastal zone. In the last three months alone the coastal commission has approved for different LCP submitted by local governments. Every single one of these LCP's was also either submitted as approved or amended to increase restrictions. The cities and counties also happen to be locations that have seen sharp decreases in the number of budget and economy hotels over the years. In fact in 2024 the commission itself noted that 70% of all coastal hotel rooms eliminated between 1989 and 2016 were economy rooms.
Despite this the commission has continued to approve these LCP's both as proposed and in an amended form but still with very restrictive regulations in place. Also, the assumption that a reduction in short term rentals will produce more housing, availability, and affordability is a fallacy. In the places where short term rentals exist on the coast they usually make up less than 1% of the overall housing stock. Several cities along the coast already have primary residency requirements in place. Meaning if you ban short term rentals where the host isn't present during the stay, all you're all you're doing is limiting the ability to make X for them to make extra money.
That host will still reside at that property. Third and most concerning is the bill's attempt to disregard the availability of lower cost accommodations. Particularly at a time when cost for all goods and services in the state has increased. Consider this 60% of all visitors to the coast are Californians, not national or international visitors but Californians. So when you're deciding whether to cut off access to overnight accommodations as this bill I does
Speaker 39
Okay. Thank you. I respectfully urge your no vote in order to keep the coast accessible to all Californians.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon or good evening I guess at this point Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network with an oppose on this amended position. We agree with the author that the presence of un posted short term rentals in some communities has a significant and adverse impact on housing supply in the coastal zone and we're very grateful that he's raising the issue however we cannot support removing the coastal commission's discretionary authority to approve or deny amendments or permits and we look forward to continuing to work on the bill.
Speaker 37
Mister chair and senators could be beside you with the California association of realtors who respectfully we are in opposition as well.
Speaker 35
Good evening chair Becker and members John Kendrick from the California chamber of commerce opposition.
Speaker 16
Good evening Alissa Stinson with Expedia group in opposition thank you.
Speaker 24
Good evening Caitlin Johnson political solutions on behalf of California travel association in opposition thank you.
Speaker 35
Pat Joyce on behalf of bay area leadership council was unable to be here thank you.
Speaker 40
Vice chair, go ahead. Thank you. I had I think one of the last acts I had is when I was mayor of Myriad, I was dealing with short term rentals. And it is definitely a local local agencies have the power to do what they need to do to regulate the short term rentals according to what the issues are in their communities. Coastal communities have more of a really a real vacation rental market.
Cities that are inland had more of a party pad and type of environment going on. And so we had to mold a a a policy that worked for us. I would like us to get out of the business of telling everybody what to do with their property beyond some of the basics. You know with the short term rentals there's some you know there's some business regulatory stuff that needs to be adhered to but we just keep going down this path of of trying to restrict people's ability to to have a house where they might not have been able to afford it because they use the the the income from their Airbnb to be able to to make that payment. And and and also in some cases where, you know, they they can't live there anymore enables them to keep the property in the family.
And so I I don't think every solution that the state comes with needs to impose its will on private property owners. When you're telling private property owners what they can do with their property, I think we need to tread very carefully. And and what I'm seeing here is is
Speaker 23
But, you guys, this this is this is about local ordinances. It's not the state imposing an ordinance on on these folks.
Speaker 40
Right. And that's that's what the local ordinance Then why are we here? Why are we doing a bill? Local ordinances Low local agencies can already do that.
Speaker 23
No. That's the problem. That's exact Thank you for asking the question. The the problem we have is that the way that the COSTAL Act is framed, the COSTALAC feels that they have to, they have to, almost exclusively prioritize visitor serving accommodations over anything else, including housing needs in the area. And so, all we're asking for here is in in the amendments I I wanna just make sure that because there was a comment said that made that the the the this forces the coastal act the coastal commission to to accept any ordinance that restricts certain terms of legal.
That's not true. If you look at the amendments that we're taking on page eight, it says that it it it it that that the commission should approve a local ordinance if it makes fine if if if the commission determines that the that that this ordinance strikes a reasonable balance between local housing needs and public access to the coast. So it it gives the commission the discretion to take to look at a local ordinance and say, hey, is this reasonable? Has this has this gone too far against property rights and and visitor serving? The problem is right now, they have to on the side of visitor serving, such that they are have been denying or jamming up local ordinances that seek to strike a balance between all of these local needs that exist with regards to these short term rentals.
Speaker 35
Thank you, senator Allen, for the clarification. You always do a lot of homework on your bill. So, look, I I I get the the challenges that places like Santa Monica are facing and used to represent a lot of the coast. Now I live in Van Nuys. And that's, I guess, my struggle with this is, you know, is there anything that that gets in the way of and maybe it's just a selfish interest on my part, but when we're looking this summer at how to go to the beach, not just for a day trip because it takes an hour and a half to get there sometimes, but just to go there and to find somewhere, it is darn near impossible.
I I don't have the same antipathy, guess, for Airbnb that I maybe once did living, you know, in Malibu. And so, you know, now that I'm on sort of the other side of the coin, I'm I'm I'm I'm using Airbnb quite a bit to get out of the valley on hot days and and get somewhere where my kids can, you know, enjoy themselves. So I I appreciate the immense day. I'm still trying to figure out what to do. I do think you've you've moved, and I think it's much more accommodating and maybe, you know, a little little less heavy handed maybe than when it first came in.
Yeah. I know that it's still a work in progress here, but, you know, I'll I'll let the conversation play out. I'm just I'm still sensitive to this this idea of access, and I appreciate I mean, there's these sort of overlying factors of of Rina and things like that that also are driving a lot of strange pressures where we think that somehow in super, super expensive areas that somehow they should be and and especially in fire areas like Malibu that somehow they should be hitting their arena targets and that there's no way they could pay for any other housing right over the hill where actually we have a lot of room for growth. Somehow we have to squeeze all that housing in there, so it's putting cities and local governments, I get, in a in a very tricky position. So that that's just my challenge here.
I think we're trying to solve one piece of it, but we're sort of leaving all those other structural pressures, so I get where local governments are coming from on all this, but yeah. Maybe I'm just in a self interested mode as just a normal dad now trying to get to the beach. But yeah. Anyway, I'll let the conversation play out. But I appreciate your work.
I think you've you have improved the bill, and I appreciate the the committee's amendments on this.
Speaker 21
Thank you, mister chair. So, I'm I'm basically in the same exact place. My district is not on the coast. It's a little closer than the vice chairs. But, I grew up on the coast in Senator Allen's district.
I understand both. I was not supportive of the bill in its first form for the reasons that have been said. This does go a substantial way in that direction. This form is still to me is not enough in terms of the balance and the standards and all that. I like the first sentence of the amendments, is the intent of the legislature to provide guidance and all of that.
Then we don't really provide much, actually. We're like, well, hey, the local jurisdiction said it's necessary for housing needs. That's a very broad statement. Think the language that the commission has been using for the last ten years around the criteria that it's using to make that evaluation useful, if the jurisdiction is meeting one of its arena categories or it's a pro housing city, so like where they're also demonstrating, They're actually doing something about this too. We're not we're not hiding behind the housing question.
So I I'm not proposing any specific thing, but just to say it it seems like they're this is absolutely the right direction, but it's I it feels like there needs to be more more refinement, more accountability, you know, a a bit more here so that we're not providing that pass because those two things are the access to the coast is the fundamental. Could the coast relax by the a larger margin than prop 36, and we need to give it life.
Speaker 23
Yeah. Absolutely. And look, so the challenge is on page four of your analysis, it refers to the public resource code 3302222, which prioritizes the use of private land suitable for visitors serving commercial recreational facilities designated to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over private residential. And the the so what we're trying to do here is to to allow to basically allow this the coastal commission, which is entrusted with the with the preservation of the coastal act, and of course, they they are all very committed to public access to the coast. I mean, is a core principle.
Everybody goes on to the coastal commission. But to allow them to do a little bit more of a balance, kind of a weighing of the various factors when considering a plan from a local community that's trying to grapple with these challenges. And that's all that's all that's what the bill's allowing for. That's what the bill seeks to do, you know, to allow the Coastal Commission to grapple. Now, I, you know, I understand we probably ought to give more guidance and I'm I welcome everybody's participation in that.
Now, as you all know, it gets incredibly tricky. The more the more guide know, the more prescriptive we are, the harder it will be to to basically, we're we're not we're not trusting these commissioners with with striking that balance, and and and it can get us and part part of what we're in the situation we're in right now is that we've we've we've we've weighted the balance so so much that the coastal commission has found it, you know, that the the the the pretty reasonable ordinances that are sent up to them are getting struck down because they are not allowed to incorporate these other factors. You know, so that's the challenge that I'm trying to I'm seeking to address here. And and it's it's it is tricky. And and if folks have suggestions or ideas, I'm I'm certainly welcome.
I certainly welcome them.
Speaker 21
Yeah. Think I appreciate that. I, you know, I I I think it is a real issue and a real problem and and the the like getting where the needle is is kind of the point. And, I guess I guess it was just a a spitball. I mean, the like, local needs and access to the coast, they're not exactly equivalent in in in at least unless unless we were to specify more what local housing needs meant because that's also in the of the beholder.
I don't know if I would make the coastal commission feel like the legislature has said on the one hand this and the other hand this and weigh them equally. But also what the only thing that this jurisdiction doing to meet its local housing needs banning short term rentals? It's not just the need, but does the local jurisdiction Is it doing something about
Speaker 23
And one of the challenges of Santa Monica remember, it's not banning all short term rentals. It's it's the unhosted.
Speaker 23
Right? And a lot of places have remember, that's not it doesn't mean you're living down the hall from the from the boner. Right? They're they're unhosted hosted includes an ADU, a a side entrance, a totally separate apartment. All of that is considered hosted for the purposes of of this.
And in the case of of the Santa Monica ordinance, for example, they've actually, you know, provided for they they they've been very careful to ensure that there is a really robust number of properties that are available for for short term rental under their ordinance that will actually be on the market if their ordinance is allowed to go through. Because they want to make sure that this is, you know, they're meeting their, you know, the the spirit of the COSOLA Act, while also making sure that we're not really screwing up the housing market in the community. And so that was a careful consideration in the development of their plan. And again, I just think that ought to be taken into consideration. I thought that that we ought to allow the COSOL Commission to take that into consideration when when it when when determining whether to approve or disapprove of an ordinance like this coming up from a local community that's actually trying.
And, this is a pro housing city. I mean, this city has endorsed you know, this city council voted for, you know, endorsed SB 79. I mean, you know, so this is not as though these are folks that are, you know, trying to restrict. They really do care about about housing production. And so we're just trying to figure out a path for communities like this that want to do right by both their visitors serving function and also their their responsibilities to their, you know, their their broader responsibilities.
I will say, you know, with the rules as they are, as you point out Senator Stern, it's it's still incredibly expensive and difficult to get It's not as though the status quo is providing a lot of low cost accommodation for, you know Mhmm. So, you know, I just think that if a city comes forward with a really thoughtful plan that actually does provide for a lot of access to short term rentals, albeit hosted, that that also make sure that they're not getting hollowed out. We ought to give that some consideration.
Speaker 21
I'll just and then I'll stop. Mister I agree with you. I think it's hard to write a statewide law that assumes everybody is like Santa Monica on this stuff. Santa Monica ordinance, Santa Monica's other work on housing makes the case. Which is why I said, you know, if if this is only applied to pro housing cities or somebody that's doing something on the problem.
Because I think the challenge is virtually every jurisdiction in the coastal zone is gonna be able to justifiably say we have local housing needs. Like, that's that's almost almost by definition. So, it's it's it's really I I agree with the commission should have all that discretion to be able to evaluate is this is this ordinance properly balanced? Does it do all the you know, does it is are they doing are they tackling their housing challenge? Is short term rentals part of it?
But just, you know, local housing needs is a very broad statement. So, I'm I'm that's I think you're you've gone a long way here, but it it feels like that with Santa Monica in mind. But, like, how do how do how do we recognize the Santa Monica in the wild, of in the rest of the coastal zone in the rest of the coastal zone that we can give some some nod to the commission, give them all the discretion that they should have in order to effectuate the coastal act, but it not It seems like if there's local housing needs that that's treated equivalent, which there are in every single place, that that's treated as more or less equivalent to the
Speaker 23
I'd be happy to try to wordsmith this with you, senator. Mean, because I hear you. I I hear you and I agree with you. You know? I I I so yeah.
The beauty of this is that I think the the the beauty of the hosted is that it both helps the housing and it also helps on affordability for for for because because actually the coastal act is, with so much respect, it's less about you and me getting to get to the coast. You know, it's about making sure that, like, lot of people that are the average income in the state is significantly lower than our not particularly high income. Right? So, you know, it's about working people getting to the coast. And one of the beauties of really emphasizing a hosted approach to this is that tends to be lower cost for for people.
But I'd I'd, you know, I'd welcome mean, I love this dialogue and I I'd love to You know, we got some smart people here at the committee. I'd love to work with you to hone this in a way that will be wise.
Speaker 4
Senator Laird. I'm at this unbelievable disadvantage of having been out of the room for most of the debate. And that's just painful because this is the one I was looking forward to as somebody that represents almost 25% of the California's Coast and spent eight years as an ex official member of the coastal commission and represents local governments that have been grappling with this issue in major ways. And it in an Airbnb. Well, if you if you if you look at well, first, on one side, and and I don't know to the extent this has been talked about, one of the big issues is trying to make sure you don't create Swiss cheese out of the coastal act.
And when when Scott Wiener had his bill a year ago to just start legislating what was in the coastal zone in his district, that's what it was at that point. And I immediately had people in very wealthy areas of my district say, oh, he's doing that? Let's get added to that. And it was like, no. Because it doesn't have meaning unless it's coherent and and in the whole.
And so there's that structurally but on point and I'm sitting here looking at senator Caballero, who used to represent a bunch of Monterey County, and now I represent all of Monterey County. They really grappled with this issue. And if you're on the Peninsula, one of the wealthiest and most expensive housing markets in The United States, because they've been derelict on water over time, essentially, you cannot build a new unit of housing right now. And and we have been trying to rearrange the water order in the Carmel River just to allow a 200 unit affordable housing project in Monterey. We can't do it yet with the state.
So here you are where you cannot build essentially new housing so that any non hosted or hosted, one of these is actually reducing the housing stock in the area. It's reducing it. It's not just sort of and that is a problem. And so they really grappled with this. They did it a number of years.
They couldn't totally figure it out. And finally, they did. Even though it wasn't unanimous, I think it might have been even three to two, they adopted an ordinance that went to the coastal commission. And even though I couldn't watch, I heard anecdotally that the county supervisor that represented the district most affected went to the coastal commission and felt like she had to fight the battle all over again. Even though they upheld it and they upheld it with a fairly strong vote in the end.
She felt she in her talking to me, she felt like it was at risk at certain times in that debate. And so you you have all these conflicting values, which is it's taking housing out of stock in certain places where where, boy, there is much more needed. You don't wanna override the Coastal Commission's authority or after a while, it's just the legislature doing that. Right. But at the same time, when there is a genuine ordinance that has been adopted, that has been worked through and has been compromised in many, many ways, it deserves some credit at the Coast al Commission.
Right.
Speaker 4
so, I think that's the nub about this whole bill. Some of the There is not a center space in the Venn diagram between some of those values. And so how do you figure this out? And so, you know, your amendments that that I saw earlier get a lot closer to it. Yeah.
But it's still there's a certain amount of coastal commission overriding and there's you know and there's still and you have the problem that we all have in doing legislation which is the situation in the Monterey Peninsula is not the same in Santa Monica and not the same we're trying to do this law that applies to everybody. And so, you know, on one level, I sort of think you're moving in the right direction and I want to give you a chance. On another level. I wonder if you actually can resolve some of these issues at any point in the process. Is there a way that the coastal act is not overridden to the extent that that it becomes a little meaningless.
And I and I have to say, as much as I am a coastal commission supporter, there are times that the access the goal of access seems to be in conflict with managing resources. I mean, Big Sur is the perfect example. Whenever the highway for twelve months is actually goes through, 4,000,000 people pass through. There's not restrooms for 60 miles. There's all these different things and you cannot manage the resource of all these people and yet and now Bixby Bridge is a safety hazard.
Somebody was killed there last year because it's a 50 mile an hour speed limit through a place where all these people are parking and just spontaneously walking across the highway. And it's sort of like, we're for access. But access was some sort of balance of safety and managing the resource and other things. And and yet, should that be done to the coastal act or should we nickel and dime it in the legislation that comes to us here? All that rolls up into your bill.
And that's the challenge here. Right. Is is how do we meet those goals in a way that we hope it's not mutually exclusive with the others.
Speaker 6
I mean, the challenge I think as you know, right, and we spoke about this. The the Mello Act explicitly took consideration of housing or or the or the ability of the the Coastal Commission to impose housing requirements, stripped the the commission from, you know, with from that with that power. And it's now the imbalance has now swung in the other direction such that the law explicitly states, and it's section thirty twenty two two two, which is on page four of your analysis, that says that the commission has to, it has to prioritize and favor visitor serving over any other need, except interestingly for agriculture or or coastal dependent industry. But, certainly explicitly mentions over private residential development. So, it's created the situation where if a city comes forward with a very thoughtful, you know, plan that, you know, that that really strikes a wise balance, sounds like something similar to what you're, you know, you you know, what we have in various communities.
Speaker 23
It's it's really made it difficult for the commission to feel comfortable approving these plans even if they feel as though they're wise. They they strike a wise balance. And it's why we've crafted this not to create Swiss cheese, but just to literally, if you look at the amendments on page eight, it's all about giving these people that we've entrusted with upholding and protecting the COSIL Act a little bit of discretion to to look at the totality of the circumstances and say, okay, does this strike a does this strike a good balance? You know, we we we we are committed to the COSTAL Act and the visitor serving public access component to this, but we also recognize there are other factors at play. And is this a wise and well balanced plan that's coming up to us from the from the from the city?
Now, again, if you wanna if you know, I'm I'm so open. I don't think any of us are wedded to this particular wording if there's ways if there are ways to to frame this section at the bottom of page eight of the analysis, you know, in a way that will be more careful or or, you know, smart. I mean, I I'm I'm so happy to to get your input. I mean, you know, the folks on this committee, mean, you've served in the cabinet and and on these topics and and represent this area and and I think know the Coastal Act incredibly well. So we're just trying to address the impacts, you know, where the Mello Act basically, you know The Mello Act without making other changes created this in a new imbalance in the act that has led to some skewed outcomes.
And we're trying to write the balance a bit in a way that really respects the coastal act the coastal commission's discretion.
Speaker 4
Well, you see, I was concerned about the places where you would be too prescriptive. And the tough thing about that is is is actually if you look at the part of the coast that's much closer to where I live, they did it legislatively and years ago. It's it's already been seven or eight years. And yet, one of the places that was most impacted with high impact rentals right along the coast was next to one of the few more affordable housing places. And believe me, affordable by not a standard even you and I, but affordable relatively there.
And and so what was happening is, it was moving into the residential neighborhoods in the place that had been affordable and it was sort of driving out Right. Some of the affordability of the existing housing stock by how that was happening. Exactly. And so We take a
Speaker 4
we we we were really trying to allow for Well, was initially concerned because I read it wrong when I've Well, I didn't. I had nothing to read for the longest time. I heard about it wrong. Right. And that was in part that I thought it was really dictating to the coastal commission what to do.
And as somebody that has authored the bill that requires the local coastal plans to do sea level rise planning, I didn't want an overall coastal plan to be required to be approved when maybe that wasn't together. You you wanted to make sure that people looked at it and made sure that that was adequate.
Speaker 23
I think it was our I mean, arguably, that that was how the bill was originally it was it was more prescriptive and stringent. We worked intensely with the committee and stakeholders and others to come up with language to provide significant more discretion. And that's that's reflected in the amendments here. Again, nothing that we're wedded to, but at least I I I think it does. Anyway, take a look and see see if it if it meets your if it passes muster for you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Any other comments? Would you I have some thoughts, but would you like to close given? You hear my thoughts first? Okay.
I'll hear my thoughts. I appreciate it. But it's true. We So we do it sometimes different ways. But, listen, I I just wanna first appreciate the conversation.
This is also a very relevant issue in my district. And and so what Senator Laird was speaking about the overall difficulty of building and then you know, net net you're taking one, you know if somebody takes out buys a house and you know to use it effectively with the primary intention of short term rentals it takes off the market. You know in various like Pacifica, is one of the last affordable more affordable, I should say affordable, but, you know, more affordable, you know, traditionally working class areas in my district that happens to be near the coast. You know, this is a massive issue. Was just looking at the Chronicle article that was talking about how literally this issue is dividing the the town in two.
So and and and, you know, and I and I wanna say with all respect to the the the coastal commission, I found that some cities were reluctant to speak up because they're worried about other stuff they have in front of the coastal commission and they don't wanna and it that's just a bad like, just shouldn't be happening. We shouldn't have cities that are scared to speak up on an issue like this because they're worried that somehow it'll affect their other things they have in front of the Coastal Commission. So I know that's not something the Coastal Commission wants, but I just wanted to air that that that feeling is out there. And that's not, I think, the way that any of us want to proceed, including the Coastal Commission. We should feel like cities should feel like they can speak up on all the issues, including this one, and not feel like somehow it's gonna be used against them later for a subsequent issue.
So we have given the coastal commission a lot of power and authority, and and, you know, they've used it in in many great ways to protect our our coast, but we need to make sure we can have the dialogue around issues like this. And I appreciate you bringing this forward. I know it's not a simple issue. I I appreciate the concept around hosted. I hadn't really really really occurred to me that much around the hosted nature, which I think is a pretty elegant way of of getting through some of these issues.
But, you know, I've personally been supportive of your efforts to to do this because I think, you know, Reese's mentioned when, you know, all these, you know, cities go through these debates, we know they're not easy. As I mentioned, you know, chronicle saying this splitting the town in two, and then have to go through it and then not know, ultimately, if that even is even gonna be accepted going forward. So I think it creates a bit of an unnecessary hurdle there. Well, with that, I guess I'm getting cut off too. So now we'll so I'm an I vote on this, and now we'll ask you to close.
Well, is
Speaker 23
there someone from Kosovo that wanted to speak or or Okay. Anyway, thank you. I mean, Look, I I I appreciate No. Okay. Wanna help with okay.
Gotcha. Okay. Alright. Question if you answer. Okay.
Okay. Alright. Thank
Speaker 23
I just wanna thank the members for being thoughtful. I I I do I agree. Maybe one of our challenges is that the bill, as originally proposed, it was different than where it is now. And I actually, you know, welcome where it's gone because I think ultimately this is about addressing a real rigidity in the act now with the Melo Act having been changing having changed the act. We're seeking here to give the commission the opportunity to balance these concerns and to help us address a very real phenomenon that's happening on the coast that really is harming a whole slew of issues from housing to affordability.
That's what I'm trying to address here. I really welcome people's input if the bill gets out of committee today. I'd love to work with you all to see how we can land this in a way that will be helpful for our state. I just asked for a vote.
Speaker 1
Senator Stern, motions with courtesy. The motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Serato? Yes.
Serato, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon?
Grove? Laird? Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. It's two to one. That vote is open for a while. Senator Caballero, you have our final bill of the day. SB eleven fifty three.
Speaker 1
So, senator Caballero, you have s b eleven fifty three. Please go ahead.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, mister chair, for the opportunity to present s b eleven fifty three, which provides a practical and responsible approach to wildfire preparedness in California. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and want to express my appreciation to you and the staff for the work on this bill. Over the past decade, California has endured some of the most destructive and unpredictable wildfires in our history, which has placed an extraordinary demand on California's public water systems and their customers. In response to these unprecedented disasters, our public water systems have invested significant resources and time to prepare for future wildfire events through emergency preparedness actions, which vary based on the system and the region of the state. While public water systems were designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to provide water to exting extinguish structural fires in the communities they serve, they were never designed to function as wildfire defense or suppression systems.
Speaker 33
Despite this, misunderstandings about how public water systems operate have shaped public expectations and contributed to perceptions that some of these systems may not have performed as they were designed during the wildfire events, which is not the case. SB eleven fifty three will improve local emergency planning, clarifying the role and capabilities of water systems during wildfire events, protect rate payers, and support future investment in infrastructure, all while identifying wild wildfire suppression and hardening strategies the state can invest in. With me today to testify is Dana Moore, executive director of the California Utilities Emergency Association, and David Pederson, general manager of the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.
Speaker 1
Great. Well, before we do that, I just wanna make sure that members of committee know that there have been additional amendments have been worked out. Each each member should have a mock up in front of them. So make sure, you know, if you don't have that, please let me know and I'll I'll go through them after our testimony here.
Speaker 38
Alright. Great. Thank you. Good evening chair and members. I'm Dana Moore.
I'm the executive director for the California Utilities Emergency Association or CEA. CEA's organizational structure allows for information sharing and we do not take formal positions on legislation. CEA is California's designated utilities emergency coordination partner with a seat in the state operations center during disasters. We coordinate across utilities, including water and wastewater, during all major incidents. CEA works alongside California's utility sector and public partners to strengthen preparedness, communication, response.
We've developed critical infrastructure utilities to align during large scale wildfires, support cross sector communication during severe weather and infrastructure disruptions and contributed to the planning frameworks that guide emergency response across California. Effective emergency coordination does not happen by chance. It is built through enduring relationships, shared frameworks, and trust that is developed over time. So when emergencies occur, collaboration is already in motion. Urban water systems can and should be expected to plan for emergencies, including wildfires.
Speaker 7
For example, coordinating with local emergency planners and responders, identification of critical infrastructure and current conditions, and developing mitigation strategies to avoid or substantially lessen the impact of wildfire on water systems. Plans can be integrated into existing frameworks, including but not limited to risk and resilience assessments, emergency response plans, and capital improvement plans. Utilizing existing planning frameworks creates a consistency and ensures California water systems meet a minimum preparedness standard. While urban water should be prepared for wildfire events, it is important to understand that California's water systems face a nineteen twenty twenty one challenge. Infrastructure conceived in the nineteenth and twenty twentieth centuries operating under twentieth century rules while confronting twenty first century climate wildfire and demand pressures that routinely show these systems were never designed to be limitless firefighting machines.
Speaker 38
They're built to provide safe drinking water and support typical structural fire flows. Designing water systems to function as wildfire suppression infrastructure would face significant financial and engineering constraints beyond their intended operational scope. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you, chair and members. My name is Dave Peterson. I'm the general manager of the Virginia municipal water district in LA County my agency has has had more than its fair share of experience firsthand with wildfire we've had the twenty eighteen wolsey fire and more recently the twenty twenty five palisades fire. Both of these fires were among the top 10 most destructive fires in California. As we managed through the two incidents, our water system performed exceptionally well.
There's a couple factors that went into that. Number one is pre planning and emergency response plans, and I brought mine here. It's on the table. It is an important foundational document for us. With that said, though, we do believe that these plans throughout the state, they can be strengthened by adding incident specific procedures related to wildfire and that' what this bill accomplishes and the committee amendments further that goal.
Speaker 20
The issue that also is facing these public water systems including mine is a liability issue and just to frame that in the twenty eighteen wolsey fire we had one claim as a result of that fire and we settled that claim for about a $150,000 Fast forward to the Palisades fire we had a 118 homes that were destroyed yet we have 18,000 individual claims adding up to more than a $100,000,000,000. So we are in a situation where the public water systems of California are essentially being the insurance policy of last resort for damages related to wildfire. It's not a tenable situation so that we can also provide affordable water to the people of California. And so this bill will help to correct that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We've others in support. Please step forward. Waiting I see a lot of people waiting here patiently. Please go ahead.
Speaker 37
Yes. Chris Peterson, Capital Corp Group on behalf of Cam and Foothill Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good evening senators. Adam Quinones, California advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and Cal Chamber all in strong support.
Speaker 29
Hello Kelly Morris on behalf of the California municipal utilities association in support.
Speaker 12
Hello Jamie go on behalf of Irvine ranch water district San Diego water authority east and east valley water district support and also align with Aqua's comments.
Speaker 32
Good evening. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, the sponsors of the bill in support. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good evening Kate eager with vitamin group on behalf of cal water in support and we would like to align our comments with a CWA thank you so much.
Speaker 24
Good evening chair members Caitlin Johnson political solutions on behalf California water association in support thank you
Speaker 27
Good evening Lily McCann behalf of Elsinore Valley municipal water district in west valley water district in support I was also asked to register support for Contra Costa water district thanks so much.
Speaker 10
Hi, Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Thank you. Good evening. Brian O'Jackson with the Region Water Authority in support.
Speaker 30
Jack Worson on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Levenheim Municipal Water District, and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Opposition. Do we have a lead opposition witness? Anyone a register opposition?
Seeing them, we'll take it back to the committee. I wanna just again mention those additional amendments that fundamentally add considerations of system resilience and hearty measures, number one. Number two, require a plan of preparing water tanks during red flag warning. Three, require these incident specific response procedures to be adopted sorry, to be provided to county office of emergency services. Senator Kabalden.
Speaker 21
Thank you. And thanks to the committee and to the author and the sponsor for their work on this. I think It's a great bill. Wanted to, if you will indulge me for a quick corollary only because of who the author is. When I was reviewing the bill and the amendments and noted, and you know my feelings about the state mandate waivers that are typically put into bills.
I raised it with the consultant who pointed out that the reason why there's no state mandate in this bill is because it revises the definition of a crime, which seemed odd because this is a bill that merely requires, merely amends an existing report. So, did a little bit more investigation. So, the emergency, California Emergency Services Act was passed in 1983, and it was a, it was all substance. Like, you must do this in emergency. You must do this in emergency.
And it's life or death, and therefore, if you don't, it's a misdemeanor. This provision about water systems was then added ten years later because somebody said, ah, here's the section of the law that deals with these emergencies. So, that seems like a good place to put this. But, what they didn't realize at the very, very end of the chapter, like sections and sections and sections away, is that any violation of anything above it is a misdemeanor. So, you have all We've now added a million reporting requirements, literally like the Somebody's supposed to tell tell you whether your fire hydrant is red or green or whatever.
Speaker 1
And, each one of them, every single one, including this report, is now a crime. And that so that's a that's a problem in and of itself. But second, it means that even though we're mandating local agencies to do something, they're not even eligible to request reimbursement because it's included in that crime disclaimer. So, it has nothing to do with the actual policy here, but knowing how you feel about the state mandated issues and also the misapplication of criminal law. Just take Please take a look at this because it's a it's just it's You can see how it happened, but we've accidentally It's as though we put everything in the entire public resources code as a crime if you don't do it, and therefore nothing in there is a mandate.
Speaker 21
That's obviously not what the constitution is intended to do. So, anyway, nothing to do with the policy, but you're the first one to open this up in a while. And if there is tasks to be done, doesn't mean they will get reimbursed, but at least they're eligible to file a claim where appropriate. So thanks thanks to the author.
Speaker 1
Mister Stern, and I know, again, know you saw this bill in in emergency management. Please go ahead.
Speaker 35
Yeah. I did. And I really appreciated working with you and your staff on this, mister chair, as well as the author and the coalition supporting it. I think this this bill has the potential to sort of be a a comprehensive solution to what we know is is both a risk, but also there's huge urgency to expand the resiliency of our in water infrastructure. We know it's a big liability for our locals, but we also know when the water pump doesn't work up the street from you, your your house can burn down like mine did.
And where there wasn't a backup generator, and there should have been. And in my view, the county knew that that was there because I called them about it, and they didn't do anything. And so I guess I I I I really like the amends. I I love I love where the bill's headed. The the one thing is it's the same issue we talked about in the last hearing, and I just hope we can keep working to refine this.
The final piece of c that's in the committee amends that specifies the the failure of an urban retail water supplier to implement or comply with any actions identified in this new assessment shall not be considered a substantial cause of the damages resulting from a wildfire. The the thing I just wanna make sure that we're not inadvertently doing here is that somehow the the assessment becomes sort of a that immunizes a water district from from not addressing reasonably foreseeable risk. And that somehow by want them to be thorough in these assessments and to say, here are all the here are all the pump stations without backup power. Here, you know, here are the areas where we've gotta get our water supply levels up. We we don't want our water agencies to sort of pull back and give us a half hearted assessment.
Speaker 31
We want this to be thorough, and we want we want you guys to be vulnerable in that way, to to really kick those tires and and and see what you're missing and work with us on funding and and, you know, to to to be, yeah, sort of warts and all with these assessments. That said, what I don't want is because of the way the language is worded, I don't want it to somehow be just a a total safe harbor or immunization of things that are that are prudent to be doing right now. And so when I read the language and I just see the, you know, the failure to implement any actions in the plan, that says to me, well, if one of the actions identified in the plan say is, k. We definitely need backup generator at this particular pump station, and then that that's a prudent thing to be doing, and it would be actually negligent not to do that. But somehow by simply putting in the plan, then you've immunized yourself from what you know, as a person who lives has lived in many fire zones and lost a lot, you know, I don't wanna leave those folks holding the bag.
Speaker 35
So maybe you could comment. I mean, as the author, maybe I I I'm very close and have deep respect for your sponsor here too. So I don't know if you have a comment on how we might work through that. It doesn't need to happen today, but I just I wanna I wanna be really precise about this. So Understood.
Yeah. Through the chair,
Speaker 34
Yeah. Thank you, senator. I think, you know, this is a a very good comment it' not intended to immunize or provide a safe harbor for water systems in not implementing the procedures it' absolutely our intent that these procedures should be implemented the primary concern is that we cannot as a water system guarantee that if we do everything that we've laid out that it is going to result in the outcome that we all hope which is that we limit the damages so that is what we're trying to capture. We're open to trying to work through this. I will say that the language was striking to substantial cause and not essentially immunizing all connection.
And I think if we can work more on that language and try to refine it and achieve the goals that I think we share, I think there's a path forward on it.
Speaker 35
Okay. I appreciate that. I'm committed too. So let's let's stick together on this one. We'll keep working it.
Obviously, working with you, mister chair, and just make sure that, yeah, that we give you space to to keep hardening and keep doing this work. And and we know it's also not gonna come you know, you can't do this all on your own. You got a lot of restrictions on funding these things locally, and we've got prop four and other pots that I think we should be working at and sort of working the funding piece to it too. So, I'm committed. I'll move the bill at the appropriate time, but do appreciate you, senator Cabrera.
Yeah.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much. I think what this bill is helping us do is highlight the necessity to address our water system in California. You know, where it falls out of the sky, whether it's up here or near the Colorado Rockies, we have a problem and it's an infrastructure age problem and it's a problem of us not having kept up with the growth in California and the future needs. Sometimes infrastructure is that stuff they throw in the ground and then they think, well, we don't have to worry about that anymore. And I can tell you that's not the case.
The infrastructure, especially around below the Palisades in Ole City, is extremely old. Every day you could turn out a thing and we've got a new a new broken main. It all needs to be replaced. And in order for us to know what needs to be done in the scope of what we need to do to invest in that every single year until we have caught up and fixed it, is gonna be longer than I'm alive. We need that information from from our water districts.
And and the liability issue, you know, I get it. People want somebody to blame. And whether it's the utility companies or or, hey, there wasn't enough water, well, I can tell you in those the instances of Altadena and and Palisades. It had nothing to do with water. There's not enough only thing the only water that would put that out would be a tsunami from the ocean and mother nature, and that's not that's not something we're ever gonna have to depend on.
Speaker 25
So I appreciate your continued efforts in addressing our water issues in California because I know you've had previous bills that are trying to get us focused more on this on this effort and and and so I'm happy to support your bill today and you know, caution people that, know, just because you have a system doesn't mean it's it's the one that's going to, you know, make all the problems go away. Every fire is different, and the the the different elements of it will overrun whatever you thought you could plan for. And I'd rather them, instead of spending this money on lawsuits, spend this money on infrastructure and making sure that, you know, we have a system that works for the fires that they can help.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Well, wanna thank you, senator Caballero. You're working at great length with our committee staff up up until, you know, today to kind of hammer out some of these pieces.
We appreciate the efforts of all of our water agencies and and again, know this isn't cheap, the backup generation not not cheap, and I think a number of people here have highlighted the funding issues. We have to work with you. We have to be a partner to this. At the same time, as it's been highlighted, are things that we want to make sure are in place. Some counties are moving forward, moving even faster than we're doing with this bill.
We appreciate those efforts, but it does seem I think some of the things that have been added are things that we really do want to know about. To our vice chair's point, we almost need to know about those so we can help hopefully and hold us accountable, as I'm sure you will, to try to get some of the additional funding for this anyway. I really appreciate it for this incredibly important issue. Happy to support the bill. Would you like to close?
Speaker 33
Thank you very much, mister chair. And, you know, a big part of being prepared is knowing what our resources are and what are the changes we need to make to the infrastructure just because the world is different now than it was sixty years ago. And, also, where we're putting our resources. We have all of these these air resources that have the ability to pick up large amounts of water and move it to a to put out wildfires. But if we don't have any storage anywhere, then what good does it do?
You have to go out to the ocean, and that's got all kinds of environmental issues using ocean water as well. So we're gonna have to figure this out both both at the local level with limited resources on the backs of rate payers and at the state level where we come to we we put together the plan to figure out where I mean, I wanted one of those black hawks in my in my my community. But but if we catch it at the wrong time of year, there's not a lot of water in in some of our facilities. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your vote. And, again, thank you very much for all the work that went into this.
It's not water is not an easy issue to deal to deal with.
Speaker 1
For sure. Yeah. Every lots of smiles and and knowing nods on this one. Okay. We have a motion from senators turn.
Please call the roll. Oh, the motion. I will read the motion to pass as amended to appropriations.
Speaker 16
Sarto, aye. Allen? Cobaldan? Aye. Cobaldan, aye.
Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern?
Stern, aye.
Speaker 1
On call. Okay. That's 50. Bill's on call. Thank you.
For the folks who are here, we're gonna go back through the roll. Yes. We're gonna start with the file item 1SB1061 Ochoa Boak. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
5 to zero that's still on call? File item 21062 by Achoo Bogue. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 16
Senator Sciartto. Aye. Sciartto, aye. Allen. Cobaldan?
Aye. Cobaldan, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 1
6 to 0. 6 to 0. Excellent. Great. Now we'll move to file item three, s P1063.
Sure. The the the the on this one, it is one I and two no's on this one right now. On on file item three. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
Okay. So on the next filing five, we do not have a motion. Okay. We have a motion by senator Sayarto. The motion is due passed to appropriations.
Speaker 16
Senators Becker? No. Becker, no. Sayarto? Aye.
Sarto, aye. Allen Gabaldon? Five.
Speaker 16
Grove? Laird? No. Laird, no. Stern?
Sorry. She's absent. Not returning. So it's
Speaker 1
1 to 2. Okay. That is 1 to 2 right now. Those still on call. File item six by senator Cortezi, s b twelve fifty.
It's four to zero right now. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
5 to 0. That is on call. File seven by senator Gonzalez. 30 right now. To pass manage appropriations, please call the absent members.
Item seven.
Speaker 1
Five to zero. To zero. That bill is on call. By item eight by McGuire. Vote is four zero right now.
Please call the roll.
Speaker 1
The one is six to zero on call. Right now, we'll take up the consent calendar. There's one item on the consent calendar. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
6 to 0 that's on call. Right. We'll go to file item 10. This is s b thirteen eighteen by senator Allen. Vote right now is two to one.
Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Please call the absent members.
Speaker 16
Senators Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Grove, Laird, aye. Laird, aye.
Stern, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That's five to one. That bill is out. Thank you all. We will keep it open for senator Allen for another moment.
Is he on his way? We'll take a brief recess. Okay. We're gonna reconvene the Natural Resources Committee and Natural Resources and Water Committee, and I will read through the final vote counts. For file item one, five vote is five to zero.
That measure passes. File item two, vote is six to zero. That measure passes. File item three, the vote is two ayes. Four noes.
That bill fails. File item four, the vote is five to zero. That measure passes. File item five, the vote is one aye. Two noes.
That measure fails. File item six, the vote is five eyes, zero nos, that measure passes. File item seven, five eyes, zero nos, that measure passes. File item eight, six ayes and zero nos. That measure passes.
The consent calendar six to zero, that consent calendar passes. And finally, a file item 10, that is five to one, and that bill passes and is out. Thank you all for being thanks everyone who participated in a in a in a long day and a long day here at the capital. This meeting of the senate natural resources and water committee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.