GOOD WELCOME. TO THE ASSEMBLY
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE HAVE 19 MEASURES ON
THE AGENDA TODAY. PLEASE NOTE
THAT SB 707 BY NEWMAN HAS BEEN
PULLED FROM TODAY'S HEARING BY
THE AUTHOR. TWO MEASURES ARE
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT. SP 306 BY
CAVALLERO AND SB 7 55 BY BECKER
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
RIVERS. HERE LEAVE US HERE.
FLORA FLORA HERE. ADDIS IS HERE.
FRIEDMAN, HOOVER. MATHIS IS HERE
. MASUCCI HERE. PELLERIN
PELLERIN HERE, WARD WOULD WOULD
. HERE'S BURR PART HERE. THANK
YOU, ALAN. SECOND OKAY, WE HAVE
A QUORUM. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ROLL.
CONSENT CALENDARS ARE SP 306
CABALLERO AND SB 755. BECKER.
RIVERS I LEAVE US I FLORA FLORA
ADDIS. THIS. I FRIEDMAN HOOVER.
MATHIS. MATHIS MERIT SUKI SUKI.
I PELLERIN, HELEN AND I WARD.
WOULD WOULD I, CYBER? AYE.
CONTENT CALENDAR HAS NINE VOTES
WILL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. OKAY? NEXT WE HAVE
WE'RE READY FOR AND WE'RE TAKING
BILLS AND SIGN AN ORDER. SENATOR
WIENER. WE'RE STARTING WITH S B.
FOUR. FOUR. UM ALRIGHT. WE
PREFER US TO START WITH US
BEFORE 23. IF THE CHAIR IS OKAY
WITH THAT I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
THANK YOU. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. SECOND. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR COLLEAGUES.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT SENATE
BILL 4 TO 3. UM REGARDING WHICH
IS AN EXTENSION AND REFINEMENT
OF SENATE BILL 35, WHICH WAS THE
LAW THAT'S LEGISLATURE PASSED
AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNED IN 2017
. UNFORTUNATELY WE'VE BEEN
UNABLE TO COME TO FULL AGREEMENT
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON ALL
AMENDMENTS, BUT I WANT TO
OUTLINE AH FOR THE COMMITTEE
WHAT I AM COMMITTED TO AND SO
I'LL DO THAT. UM FIRST I HAVE
AGREED THAT WE WILL TAKE AN
AMENDMENT. UM RELATING TO THE
WILDFIRE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL.
WE WILL REMOVE, UH, THAT
LANGUAGE AND WE WILL REPLACE IT
WITH TEMPORARY PLACEHOLDER
INTENT LANGUAGE. UM BUT THE IDEA
OF WORKING OVER THE COURSE OF
THE SUMMER. TO HAVE REFINED FIRE
LANGUAGE ENGAGING EXPERTS,
DEPARTMENTS, STAKEHOLDERS, THE
RELEVANT COMMITTEES, AH AND SO
FORTH, AND I JUST WANT TO READ
THAT. ONE SENTENCE, WHICH IS THE
FOLLOWING QUOTE IT IS THE INTENT
OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSULT
WITH EACH CD CAL FIRE AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE EXPERTS AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY WHETHER
OR TO WHAT EXTENT STREAMLINED
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROJECTS
UNDER THIS SECTION WILL APPLY
AND HIGH AND VERY HIGH. FIRE
HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES. TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION. TOPOGRAPHY
IS PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND
USES, AND SO, UH, THAT'S THE
WILDFIRE. AMENDMENT THAT WE
WOULD AGREE TO, NOT THE ONE
THAT'S IN THE ANALYSIS. IN
ADDITION RELATING TO COASTAL
ZONE ON THE ANALYSIS, HAS AN
AMENDMENT TO REINSTATE THE FULL
EXEMPTION. I'M NOT AGREEING TO
THAT. HOWEVER I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
ENGAGING, UM, WITH SOME SHUTTLE
DIPLOMACY BETWEEN MYSELF AND
COASTAL COMMISSION AT THE
REQUEST OF THE CHAIR. THE CHAIR
ASKED ME TO ENGAGE WITH THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AFTER THEY
OPPOSED THE BILL, WHICH I DID.
WE PROPOSED A COMPROMISE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AND SUBMITTED
AN ALTERNATIVE COMPROMISE TO A
CHAIR, WHICH THE CHAIR WAS KIND
ENOUGH TO PROVIDE TO ME. WE THEN
CAME BACK WITH A MODIFICATION OF
THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL. AND
AS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE VERY
CLOSE WITH A COUPLE OF LOOSE
ENDS THAT I AM OPTIMISTIC WILL
BE ABLE TO RESOLVED. AND THE
PROPOSAL THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD
WHICH IS THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL, AS
MODIFIED, WOULD PROVIDE THE
PRIMARY ASPECTS OF IT. OR THAT S
B 4 TO 3 WOULD ONLY APPLY IN
AREAS OF THE COASTAL ZONE WITH A
CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
OR A CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN. UM
IT WOULD PROVIDE ONE YEAR
DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
COASTAL ZONE TO FIX SENT TO THE
AREAS THAT IT DOES APPLY, THEY
WOULD EXEMPT THE COMMISSION'S
GEOGRAPHIC APPELLATE
JURISDICTION AS DEFINED IN
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 30603, A
ONE AND TWO UM, IT WOULD EXEMPT
AREAS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
VULNERABLE TO 3. FT OF SEA LEVEL
RISE AS DEFINED BY NOAH OR BY
THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL.
WHICHEVER CALCULATION THE
COMMISSION PREFERS. IT WOULD
APPLY THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S
DEFINITION OF WETLANDS AND PRIME
AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN TERMS OF
THE EXEMPTION THAT'S ALREADY IN
THE BILL, BUT WE WOULD USE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION'S DEFINITION
, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERAL
DEFINITION. IN ADDITION, AND THE
COMMISSION DID NOT ASK FOR THIS
, BUT I'VE WE'RE, INCLUDING THIS
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOOD POLICY
. WE WOULD ALSO EXEMPT. UM 100
FT. BUFFER AROUND WETLANDS SO
THAT NO ONE IS BUILDING RIGHT UP
TO THE WETLANDS LINE. THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, I THINK
WOULD PREFER A DIFFERENT LEVEL
OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN A DIFFERENT
METHOD OF CALCULATING. WE'RE
HAPPY TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND LIKE I SAID
I'M OPTIMISTIC. WE'LL REACH A
RESOLUTION ON THOSE ISSUES. UM I
ALSO WANT TO KNOW THERE WAS A
LETTER OR THERE WAS CONCERN FROM
THE TRADES AND FROM I, B W AND
SO FORTH ABOUT A CHANGE THAT A
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT
HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE 85 FT
DEFINITION AND I HAVE AGREED TO
REVERT BACK TO THE LANGUAGE THAT
WAS THERE BEFORE THE AMENDMENT.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT
ASSUAGES THE CONCERNS FROM FROM
THE TRADES, UM SO THIS BILL,
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, UM, THIS
BILL EXTENDS THE SUNSET ON SP 35
TO 2036. AH SP 35 COLLEAGUES HAS
BEEN A SUCCESSFUL CALIFORNIA
HOUSING LAW, IT HAS STREAMLINED
NEARLY 20,000 NEW HOMES AND THE
FEW YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN IN
EFFECT, THREE QUARTERS OF THOSE
NEW HOMES HAVE BEEN BELOW MARKET
RADIO HOMES. WE KNOW COLLEAGUES
THAT FOR DECADES, CALIFORNIA HAS
PROFOUNDLY UNDER PRODUCED
HOUSING. WE ARE SHORT MILLIONS
OF HOMES. WE ARE ALMOST DEAD
LAST 49 OUT OF 50 STATES AND
HOMES PER CAPITA AND WE CAN SEE
THE RESULTS EVERY DAY WITH
PEOPLE LIVING IN CARS WITH
OVERCROWDED HOUSING CONDITIONS.
WITH PEOPLE BEING PUSHED OUT OF
THE BAY AREA, OR L, A OR OTHER
PARTS OF THE STATE ARE BEING
PUSHED OUT OF THE STATE
ENTIRELY. UM THIS BILL, WHAT IT
DOES IS FOR CITIES THAT ARE
BEHIND ON THEIR HOUSING GOALS.
THEY BECOME STREAMLINED, MEANING
THAT IF A PROJECT COMPLIES WITH
LOCAL ZONING, AND THIS BILL DOES
NOT CHANGE ZONING COMPLIES WITH
LOCAL ZONING AND WITH OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS AS ENUMERATED IN THE
BILL THAN IT RECEIVES
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL, SO
APPROVAL IN MONTHS INSTEAD OF
YEARS AND YEARS. UM WE ALSO IN
THIS BILL, AND I WANT TO THANK
OUR PARTNERS IN LABOR FOR
WORKING INTENSIVELY WITH US,
WHILE THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND
WILDFIRES HAVE DOMINATED DEBATE
IN THIS COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE
. IT WAS ALL ABOUT LABOR
STANDARDS, AND I'M PROUD TO SAY
THAT I WANT TO THANK OUR
PARTNERS THE CARBON THERE ISN'T
A LABORERS, OPERATING ENGINEERS
CEMENT MASONS S E I U FOR
WORKING WITH US, AND ALSO THOSE
WHO WERE OPPOSED TO THE BILL
BUILDING TRADES AND, UH, AND THE
SUB CRAFTS FOR BEING WILLING TO
WORK WITH US, AND I THINK WE'LL
BE HEARING SOME GOOD NEWS TODAY,
SO COLLEAGUES. THIS IS A DIVIDED
THE SUCCESSFUL LAW. THIS BILL
WILL EXTEND IT AND IMPROVE IT,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. UM I WANT TO. FIRST OF
ALL, THANK MY LEGISLATIVE
PARTNER IN THIS ENDEAVOR.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. HAS BEEN
A TRUE LEADER ON HOUSING AND THE
LEGISLATURE, SOMEONE TO GIVE HER
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND
THEN WITH US TODAY, R. J.
BRADSHAW THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
WITH THE NORTH CAL CARPENTER'S
UNION, AND MARINA Y. IN THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
BETTER THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
FOR LETTING ME CO PRESENT AS
WELL AND THANK YOU COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A
LOT OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE
WEEKEND AND LAST WEEK ON THIS
BILL, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, UM,
THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST
IMPACTFUL LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
ACTUALLY BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND I KNOW THAT EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF US WHEN WE GO BACK
TO OUR DISTRICTS, THE NUMBER ONE
THING WE HEAR ABOUT IN OUR
DISTRICTS IS THE HOUSING ISSUE.
WHETHER IT'S HOMELESSNESS OR
RENT BURDENED FAMILIES WHO ARE
LEAVING CALIFORNIA. WE ALL KNOW
THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND
THIS BILL, AND THIS LAW HAS
ENABLED US TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE
PROBLEM. SO WE SHOULD EXTEND THE
SUNSET ON THIS CURRENT LAW. THIS
IS CURRENT LAW THAT WE WANT TO
EXTEND THE SUNSET ON. AND
GETTING HERE HASN'T BEEN EASY. I
KNOW MANY OF YOU WERE AROUND
LAST YEAR AND IN YEARS PRIOR
WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE
CHALLENGES AROUND THE VERY
PASSIONATE CONVERSATIONS AROUND
LABOR STANDARDS THAT I AND THE
SENATOR HAVE BEEN A PART OF AS
SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN, AND WE'VE
LANDED IN A GOOD PLACE ON THOSE
AND IT HASN'T BEEN FUN. BUT
WE'VE GOTTEN THERE AND WE'VE GOT
STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE
CARPENTERS UNION. WE HAVE THE
LABORERS, THE OPERATING
ENGINEERS SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
I BELIEVE THE TRADES ARE
REMOVING THEIR OPPOSITION. I NÓI
BW, I BELIEVE HAS THAT'S A HUGE
TESTAMENT TO THE WORK OF ALL OF
US, SAYING THAT WE CAN NO LONGER
SAY NO TO HOUSING. SAYING NO TO
HOUSING IS NO LONGER AN OPTION
IN CALIFORNIA. IT CAN'T BE SO
LET'S EXTEND THE SUNSET. LET'S
EXTEND THIS CURRENT LAW ON THE
BOOKS. WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK
THROUGH. SOME OF THESE ISSUES
THAT I KNOW ARE IMPORTANT TO
MANY OF US, BUT BUILDING HOUSING
IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE A LARGE,
DIVERSE COALITION OF FOLKS WHO
ARE SUPPORTING THIS BILL BECAUSE
THEY KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. SO AS A PRINCIPAL
CO AUTHOR. AS CHAIR OF THE
ASSEMBLY HOUSING COMMITTEE. I
STAND IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL, AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. GOOD
AFTERNOON MARINA WHITE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM,
UM, AT ITS VERY CORE, AS THE 35
IS ABOUT HOLDING COMMUNITIES
ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR HOUSING
PLANS. UM PROPOSED PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
. IT'S NOT UNPROTECTED,
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SITES
. UM AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND
AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE
ABLE TO HAVE THE ASSURANCE THAT
WHEN THEY COME FORWARD WITH THAT
PROJECT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
A PATH TO APPROVAL. AND THIS IS
WHY SP 35 HAS BEEN SUCH A
SUCCESSFUL TOOL FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS IN PROMOTING
IN GETTING THEIR PROJECTS
APPROVED, AS THE SENATOR SAID
75% OF THE UNITS THAT HAVE USED
SP 35 HAVE BEEN AFFORDABLE TO
LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS. UM AND IT'S
PARTICULARLY POWERFUL IN
COMMUNITIES WITH COMPLEX
APPROVAL PROCESSES THAT MIGHT BE
SUPPORTIVE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OR IN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
COMMUNITIES OF OPPORTUNITY. MANY
OF THOSE COMMUNITIES OF
OPPORTUNITY ARE MEETING THEIR
ABOVE MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
GOALS AND THEREFORE ARE SUBJECT
TO A 50% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENT. THAT'S HUGE, AND
WE'RE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
SEEING A LOT OF SITES THAT USE
THIS ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE 100%
AFFORDABLE. BY EXTENDING SB 35
CENTS HAD DATE AS BEFORE. 23
WILL ENSURE THAT ARE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROVIDERS CONTINUE TO
HAVE ACCESS TO THIS STREAMLINED
PROCESS UNTIL 2035 AND ALLOW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO
PLAN THEIR PIPELINE BEYOND THE
NEXT TWO YEARS, WHICH IS
CRITICAL. UM AND WE'VE LEARNED
FROM THE PAST FIVE YEARS OF
IMPLEMENTATION. IT'S NOT. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THAT
THE BILL WORKS AS WELL AS
POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
MADE THE TWEAKS THAT WE'VE MADE,
AND THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, I
COMMEND THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING SO HARD
AND FIGURING OUT HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE THAT THE BILL CAN APPLY IN
AREAS THAT AGAIN ARE AREAS IN
THIS STATE WHERE WE'RE STILL
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE SITES BUT ENSURING
THAT WHEN THERE IS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT BEING PROPOSED,
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A MILE FROM
THE COAST. IT CAN BUT HAPPENS TO
BE IN THE COASTAL ZONE. IT CAN
STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
PROCESS. AS BEFORE. 23 IS
CRITICAL TO HELPING US CLOSE OUR
TREMENDOUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GAP. WE HAVE OVER 1.2 MILLION
SHORTAGE OF HOMES FOR
CALIFORNIA'S MOST, UM MOST LOW
INCOME FAMILIES. UM AND IT'S
TIME TO THAT. WE ENSURE THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS HAVE ACCESS TO SAVE
AFFORDABLE HOMES. AND FOR THESE
REASONS, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT
TODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SORRY, MY
BACK'S KIND OF TO YOUR NOT MY
PREFERRED. SO LET ME SAY HI TO
EVERYONE. J. BRADSHAW EXECUTIVE
OFFICER NOR CAL CARPENTER'S
UNION. VERY HONORED HERE TO
REPRESENT THIS BROAD COALITION
OF LABOR, PARTICULARLY TALKING
ON BEHALF OF THE STATEWIDE
CALIFORNIA CONVERSES CARPENTERS
, ALSO THE OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LABORERS UNION SUMMIT, MASONS IN
NOR CAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, SO I WANTED
TO REALLY MAKE IT CLEAR. THIS IS
A LABOR FRIENDLY LABOR POSITIVE
BILL. STARTING THEIR, UM YOU
KNOW, NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A
DATA DUMP. A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY
BEEN SAID, BUT I WANT TO TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE
EFFECTS ARE ON WORKING CLASS
FOLKS AND WE TALKED ABOUT WE
NEED 2.5 MILLION HOUSING UNITS
AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT 1.2 TO 1.4 MILLION
AFFORDABLE QUOTE UNQUOTE UNITS
NEEDED RIGHT AWAY WHAT THAT
ACTUALLY MEANS FOR THE WORKING
CLASS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IN
OUR STATE, AND WHY WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS. AND ASK
YOU TO HELP US MOVE THE ONE
ANOTHER SOLUTION TOWARDS HOUSING
. YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
HOUSING PRODUCTION IN A 90% ON
ORGANIZED INDUSTRY, THAT'S 90%
OF THE WORKERS IN PRIVATE
RESIDENTIAL WOOD FRAME
CONSTRUCTION ARE UNORGANIZED.
AND SUBJECTED TO WHAT WE CALL IT
IS A CRIME SCENE OF CASH, PAY
TAX FRAUD, AND NOW WE'RE UP
AGAINST CARTEL MANAGED
WORKFORCES, HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
ETCETERA, AND IT'S A TREMENDOUS
DRAIN ON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOURCE WISE, BUT IT IS
CRUSHING ON THOSE CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS AND ALSO HAS A NEGATIVE
IMPACT ON WORKERS WHO ARE
ORGANIZED, NOT BE ABLE TO WORK
IN THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. SO
OUR STRONG POSITION HERE TODAY
IS TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP TO PULL
UP. THOSE WORKERS HELP US
PRODUCE HOUSING ACROSS THE STATE
, NOT STAND FOR EXCLUSION IN ANY
MANNER AND MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER
THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP AND THE
MEMBERSHIP FOR UNIONS ACROSS THE
BOARD, AND WORKERS ACROSS THE
BOARD HAS CREATED THE
TRANSPORTATION CRISIS, WHICH IS
TALKED ABOUT AS A SUPERCOMPUTER
PROBLEM. WHICH IS REALLY SERVICE
WORKERS, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.
IT'S CRUSHING, IT'S MADE
CHILDCARE UNAFFORDABLE, ETCETERA
, SO JUST WANT TO ILLUMINATE
THOSE POINTS. THAT'S A LOT
IMPORTANT ISSUES. IT TOUCHES THE
STATE STATEWIDE, BUT THE WORKERS
AND HOUSING HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT
FOR 35 YEARS EASILY AND THE
PRODUCTION OF HOUSING FOR
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE IS NOT
HAPPENING ANYWHERE NEAR SCALE
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. SO WE SAY,
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR STRONG
SUPPORT TODAY TO HELP WORKERS
RISE TO PRODUCE HOUSING AT EVERY
INCOME LEVEL AND TO BRING LONG
TERM SOLUTIONS TO OUR STATE TO
HELP BUILD WEALTH WEALTH FOR
THOSE WHO ARE MOST AT RISK RIGHT
NOW. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE
TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. NEXT. WE'RE READY FOR
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
JUST A REMINDER, PLEASE. JUST
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. FOUR ROWS,
PLEASE. ANIMAL SET BACK DOWN AND
CALL THE NEXT FOUR. LIKE DENNIS
UNITED WAY OF GREATER L A. WE
SUPPORT. BOB NAYLOR FOR FUEL
INSTEAD DIDN'T COMPANY THAT'S
HOWARD AHMANSON JR AND ORANGE
COUNTY PHILANTHROPISTS IN
SUPPORT? JAN MORE IN SOCIAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE OF THE
INTERFAITH COUNCIL OF CONTRAST
TO COUNTY SUPPORT GOOD
AFTERNOON, DANIEL GREG
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 20 TO 36 IN
OAKLAND. FULL SUPPORT. DAN
BRAMPTON DRIVE ALL THAT THERE'S
LOCAL 9109 RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO, URGE YOUR STRONG
SUPPORT. DIDN'T NEED A STRONGER
AND VOLUNTEER WITH CALIFORNIA R
P CAPITAL RESPONSE TEAM, SENIORS
OF THE LARGEST NUMBER OF FIRST
TIME HOMELESS DUE TO ECONOMIC
REASONS. ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CHARLES DE FARGE WITH
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF
SAN FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT. APRIL
ATKINS BUSINESS. REP LOCAL 22
STRONG SUPPORT. MATTHEW MILLER,
DRYWALL LEATHERS LOCAL 1968
LIVERMORE STRONG SUPPORT. CARLOS
WARNS WITH CARPENTERS, LOCAL 35
OR SOMEBODY 11 80 US. 1 32 AND
STRONG SUPPORT. JAMIE MINOR ON
BEHALF OF SALESFORCE,
HEADQUARTERED IN SAN FRANCISCO.
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. RAY
LAWSON, LOCAL 56 TO 7,
CALIFORNIA, LONG BEACH AND
STRONG SUPPORT. IS HE SWINDLER
ON BEHALF OF MAYOR LONDON
BLEEDING BREED OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR CHRIS MCKAY LI ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND SUPPORT ANTHONY
ADVICE LOCAL TO T 36 OUT OF
OAKLAND AND STRONG SUPPORT.
RIGHT NANCE, SOUTHWEST
CARPENTERS OUT OF BAKERSFIELD,
ROMANO COUNTY IS STRONG SUPPORT.
MAINLY MAINTENANCE SOUTHWEST
CARPENTERS OUT OF THE SAN LUIS
BISPO SANTA MARIA AREA OF
CENTRAL COAST. STRONG SUPPORT.
JOSH CHRISTENSEN FROM
SOUTHWESTERN MOUNTAIN STAGE
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
NORTH LAKE COUNTY STRONG SUPPORT
. KYLE PATTERSON, SOUTHWEST
MOUNTAIN STATES, REGIONAL
COUNCILOR, CARPENTERS FROM SOUTH
LOS ANGELES. WE ARE STRONG
SUPPORT. REVEREND DANIEL TAM
DEACON IN THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE
OF LOS ANGELES, COVERING FIVE
COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
, CHAIR OF INTERFAITH SOLIDARITY
NETWORK AND A PROUD MEMBER OF
THE OUR FUTURE LOS ANGELES
COALITION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
CHRIS SNIDER, POLITICAL DIRECTOR
FOR THE OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL THREE AND ON BEHALF OF OUR
40,000 MEMBERS IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. STRONG SUPPORT.
HERNANDEZ FROM LABOUR'S LOCAL TO
61 OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO FRANK
SUPPORT ABRAM DIAZ WITH THE
NONPROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT
OLEGARIO GUZMAN, MEMBER OF
LILIANA LOCAL 304 STRONG
SUPPORT. STAR BREAD SHOT OAKLAND
RESIDENTS STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, MATT
CRIMMINS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ABOUT A CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS PROUD TO BE
HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT. MATTHEW
MANJI WITHIN OUR CITY, LAWSON
EARTH. GOD ROSE, PRO BONO, LEGAL
SERVICES FIGHTER AND STRONG
SUPPORT. SEAN MCGARY, CARPENTERS
, LOCAL 20 TO SAN FRANCISCO AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. FRANCISCO
NUNES, LABOUR'S LOCAL THREE OR
FOUR ALAMEDA COUNTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. VICTOR DE LA TORRE, UM,
LOCAL TO 61 OUT OF SAN
FRANCISCO. STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TERRENCE
SANDAL YAK WITH FIRM FOUNDATION
COMMUNITY HOUSING IN STRONG
SUPPORT. REVEREND DOCTOR, PENNY
NIXON SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL AND ALSO
PENINSULA INTERFAITH SOLIDARITY
COHORT AND STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ED EVANS, CARPENTERS,
LOCAL TO 17 AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THERE IS A LOPEZ LOCAL. NOW I
WANNA NINE SACRAMENTO AND
SUPPORTER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS JOHN BELL. PERRIELLO
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1 80 OUT OF
SOLANO COUNTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, TARYN
MEMBERS. I'M TRACEY STEPHENS,
REPRESENTING THE CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. MY NAME'S SETH HOWARD,
MEMBER OF CARPENTERS. LOCAL 17
89 OUT OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. JOSE MELO, SOUTHWEST
MOUNT STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS WE DO IN CALIFORNIA
AND WE SUPPORT THANK YOU
STRONGLY SUPPORT. HELLO MY NAME
IS VICTOR, MY BELLY PRESIDENT OF
LOCAL 7 51 IN SANTA ROSA. MY
1500 MEMBERS ARE VOTING. YES, ON
THIS, PLEASE. OMAR KOBE AND
LOCAL 951 LIVE OUT OF RIVERSIDE
, CALIFORNIA PLEASE VOTE YES.
STEVE HARRIS. LOCAL 7 51. SANTA
ROSA. I'M ASKING FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, JAMEEL
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 951 ON BEHALF
OF THE 6000 MEMBERS OUT OF OUR
LOCAL STRONGLY SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JASON MARTINEZ, LOCAL 701
AND VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT FROM
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA THANK YOU.
MITCHELL VINCENT GUERRA,
CARPENTERS LOCAL 2 TO 36 FROM
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, PLEASE.
WELL, YES. THEY'RE NUNCIO
CARPENTER'S UNION. PLEASE VOTE.
YES THANK YOU. WHEN I ASKED MY
FATHER AND CABIN DOES LOOK ON IT
IN SAVANNAH COUNTY. I URGE YOU
TO VOTE YES. ON THE BILL.
THANKS. DAN WATSON, CARPENTERS,
LOCAL 17 89 OUT OF TRUCKEE,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT ANTONIO
VASQUEZ AT A LOCAL 11 09 BY
SAYING, PLEASE VOTE YES. CHUCK
NOW, OUR CARPENTERS, LOCAL 15 99
READING CALIFORNIA PLEASE VOTE
YES. BRIAN BAKER COVERS LOCAL 15
99. PLEASE VOTE YES. TIM OR
CARPENTERS. LOCAL 22 FIELD REP.
PLEASE VOTE YES, FOR THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. DAN
CALLIMACHI, CARPENTERS LOCAL 22
OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO HERE IN
SUPPORT. JUAN DOMINGUEZ. LOCAL
701 OUT OF FRESNO. PLEASE VOTE
YES. CARLOS VALDES, LOCAL 46
SACRAMENTO. PLEASE VOTE YES.
BRIAN SHIELDS, LOCAL 34 POWER
DRIVERS NORTHERN 46 COUNTY IN
SUPPORT. $100 IN THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, TIM VALDERRAMA
WITH THE VITAMIN GROUP ON BEHALF
OF THE CIA, YOU STATE COUNCIL
AND SUPPORT NICO MOLINA ON
BEHALF OF THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP AND SUPPORT
JOHN HANNAH COMMUNITY COLLEGE
TRUSTEE FROM ORANGE COUNTY AND A
MEMBER OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 714
AND SUPPORT ALONSO CONTAINER
DRIVE A LOCAL BAR LETTERS, LOCAL
68 0 AND SUPPORT. PEDRO MENDEZ,
CARPENTERS LOCAL 22 IN SAN
FRANCISCO IN FULL SUPPORT,
THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUAN
ESPINOZA, CARPENTERS, LOCAL TO
17 AND SOME METAL COUNTY PLEASE
BOARD YES. GOOD AFTERNOON.
FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, NORTH KOREA
, CARPENTERS, A LOCAL 1 80.
VALLEJO POLICE BOAT. YES. AH
WELL. TOSCANO COVERS THE LOCAL 7
13. ALAMEDA COUNTY. PLEASE VOTE.
YES, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
VOICES VIA THE CORPORATE IS
LOCAL TO 17 SOME MATTEL COUNTY
PLEASE VOTE. YES, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. HARVEY MCEWEN,
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 7 13, AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. YES
CARPENTER'S UNION IN SUPPORT.
BETRAYED A CARPENTER'S LOCAL 7
13 AND SUPPORTED THIS BILL.
MICHELLE FLORES, PILE DRIVERS,
LOCAL 34 AND I FULLY SUPPORT AS
BEFORE 23. ANTHONY CAROLINE WITH
CARPENTERS. LOCAL 22 OUT OF SAN
FRANCISCO. PLEASE VOTE YES.
STEPHEN GÓMEZ CARPENTERS LOCAL
91 09 OUT OF SACRAMENTO. BOTH
SUPPORT YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
ANDREW DODD KINS OF LOCAL
CARPENTERS. 46 I SUPPORT THIS
BILL, PLEASE VOTE YES. HELLO MY
NAME IS AMELIA TREVINO. LOCAL
46. SACRAMENTO CARPENTER AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON AFTER RODRIGUEZ COVERS
LOCAL 20 TO 36 OUT OF OAKLAND,
PLEASE VOTE YES. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS JOSE CABRERA. CARBONS
LOCAL FOUR OR FIVE IN TOWNS A.
PLEASE VOTE. YES, FOR THIS. MY
NAME IS AARON HANDZUS. CARBON
CYCLE. 22 SAN FRANCISCO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS WILLIAM
AND I AM FROM OAKLAND CARPENTERS
. LOCAL 20 TO 36. PLEASE VOTE
YES ON THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ISRAEL VIA LOCAL 7 13. PLEASE
VOTE YES. GABLE MILL, WRITES
LOCAL 102 IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. BENJAMIN LOPEZ, CARPENTERS
11 ON NINE IN VISALIA, PLEASE
VOTE YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHRIS
ARTEAGA, CARPENTERS, LOCAL 71,
FRESNO COUNTY AND FULL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. I AM ARTEAGA, LOCAL
505 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. PLEASE
VOTE YES. CESAR SANCHEZ FROM
OAKLAND, PLEASE BOTH. YES. CHAIR
DOESN LOCAL 405 SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA I URGE YOU TO VOTE?
YES, ON THIS. THANK YOU.
MAURICIO CHAVEZ OPENED
CALIFORNIA LOCAL 713 PLEASE VOTE
YES. SEAN HEBERT, CARPENTERS
LOCAL 505 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
COUNTY, UH, URGING YOUR SUPPORT.
JONATHAN IEREMIA, LOCAL 34 PILE
DRIVERS STRONG SUPPORT. MEGAN
SOME WAY FROM SACRAMENTO. UM
REPRESENTING SACRAMENTO. OUR
AREA CONGREGATIONS TOGETHER IN
STRONG SUPPORT. CHAIR MEMBERS
BEVERLY ON BEHALF THE STATE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL, CALIFORNIA WE HAVE A
SUPPORTIVE AMENDED POSITION. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS COMMITMENT TO WORKING
WITH US ON SCHOOL INTERIM
PROVISIONS TO RETURN BACK TO MAY
23RD LANGUAGE THANKS SO MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CÁC, UKRAINE'S HERE ON
BEHALF OF ONE OF THE SPONSORS
CALIFORNIA. UM BE ALSO HERE ON
BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY AT HOME
ACTION FUND AND ALSO HERE ON ON
BEHALF OF BAY AREA COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. HOLLY FOR MANY YEARS,
THE LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
HERE AND SUPPORT TODAY ON BEHALF
OF CIVIC WELL SPUR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, CALIFORNIA SANDHILL
PROPERTIES BUCKEYE PROPERTIES
AND BUILD A CASA IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, TODD DAVID ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION AND ABUNDANCE SAN
FRANCISCO AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON NORLAND ASPIRIN
WITH AXIOM ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF
META IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR, COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS RON ROULETTE ON THE
POLITICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE NORTH
CAL CARPENTER'S UNION. I STILL
HAVE 200 FOLKS STANDING OUT
THERE WANTING TO COME ME TO
THIS, BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOU
FOR YOU ALL AND YOUR TIME. I'M
JUST GONNA SAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CARPENTERS OPERATORS, LABOUR'S
CEMENT MASONS PLASTERS. WE ASKED
FOR A YES VOTE. THANK YOU. OH,
WILL BE FUN. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
BETWEEN ER SCOTT WITCH ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE
TRADES COUNCIL TO SET
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS TO CALIFORNIA COALITION
OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES, THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS AND THE ELEVATOR
CONSTRUCTORS UNION WITH THE
SENATORS COMMITMENT TO RETURN
THE LANGUAGE TO ITS STATE AS IT
LEFT THE SENATE. WE ARE AGNOSTIC
ON THIS, BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND THANK YOU TO THE
CARPENTERS THAT, UM, ARE STILL
OUTSIDE. WE HEAR YOU, AND WE
APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING
SOMEONE TO REPRESENT YOUR VOICE
IN THIS HEARING. UM, NEXT. WE'RE
READY FOR OPPOSITION. WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. I THINK THAT
WITNESS. IF YOU CAN MOVE THE
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT WE CAN
HAVE YOU BACK UP HERE IF THERE
ARE QUESTIONS, BUT SINCE WE HAVE
SEVERAL PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION,
JUST WANT TO HAVE MAKE SURE THEY
HAVE A SEAT. SO I'LL LET YOU
DECIDE WHO GOES FIRST. OKAY?
GREAT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M SEAN DRAKE,
SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FOR
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION. THE COASTAL
COMMISSION RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES
AS BEFORE 23 UNLESS IT IS
AMENDED TO MAINTAIN THE COASTAL
ACT IN THE COASTAL ZONE. THE
COASTAL ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT DOES
REQUIRE THAT HOUSING BE BUILT IN
WAYS THAT WOULD NOT BE
VULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL RISE OR
BLOCK COASTAL ACCESS, AMONG
OTHER POLICIES. TO THAT END, WE
HAVE CIRCULATED COMPROMISE
AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU
, WHICH WE HAVE OFFERED OVER THE
WEEKEND AND WHICH THE AUTHOR
REFERRED TO THEY ALLOW THE
MINISTERIAL PROCESS TO APPLY IN
THE COASTAL ZONE. WITH
MODIFICATIONS TO AVOID LEGAL
CLIMATE AND RESOURCE ISSUES WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS WERE PREPARED
TO REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION. I WANT
TO USE THE REST OF MY TIME JUST
TO ADDRESS THE OFFER THAT WE
HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR AT THE
TOP. UM ONE POINT THAT WE DID
NOT HEAR JUST AS PART OF THE
SUMMARY OF THE LATEST COMPROMISE
OFFER, SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE
AUTHOR'S PREVIOUS OFFERS WAS TWO
IN THE COASTAL ZONE LIMIT
APPLICATION OF THE BILL TO AREAS
THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED FOR
RESIDENTIAL OR MULTI FAMILY.
THIS IS IMPORTANT IN THE COASTAL
ZONE FOR PROTECTING EXISTING LOW
COST VISITORS SERVING AREAS THAT
IS THE BIKE RENTAL SHOPS, THE
SURFING SHOPS, THE LITTLE
RESTAURANTS, THE THINGS THAT
MAKE THE COAST ENJOYABLE FOR
EVERYONE TO VISIT THOSE IS THAT
LIVE THERE IN THOSE THAT DON'T
WITHOUT THAT PROTECTION THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE
NATURALLY AFFORDABLE BUSINESSES
TO BE BOUGHT OUT, DEMOLISHED AND
REPLACED WITH LARGELY HIGH END
HOUSING WITH NOMINAL AMOUNTS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MIXED IN. WE
DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PACKAGE,
BUT WE UNDERSTAND IT TO BE
THERE, AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT IT
WOULD BE THERE AS PART OF
REACHING A RESOLUTION. AND THEN
I WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF
POINTS FROM THE AUTHOR'S LATEST
OFFER THAT ARE SIMPLY
UNWORKABLE. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS, UM, OFFER TO RETAIN THE
EXCLUSION OF AREAS WHERE THERE
IS NO CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM THAT IS IMPORTANT. THE
AUTHOR, HOWEVER, CARVES OUT OF
THAT EXCEPTION. THE BILL
APPLYING IN AREAS THAT DO HAVE A
CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN. THAT'S
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE LAND USE
PLAN IS ONLY THE FIRST HALF OF
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IT
IS THE HALF THAT IS NOT
OBJECTIVE. IT HAS BROADLY
APPLICABLE POLICIES. THOSE ARE
THEN MADE SPECIFIC AND OBJECTIVE
THROUGH THE OTHER HALF OF THE
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, THE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IF THIS BILL
APPLIES IN AREAS THAT ONLY HAVE
A LAND USE PLAN. ALL OF THE
POLICIES IN THAT PLAN WILL BE
WAIVED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
OBJECTIVE FOR THAT REASON
LIMITING THAT CARVE OUT AND
RETAINING THE EXCEPTION OF LCP
JURISDICTIONS IS IMPORTANT. AS
FOR THE BENCHMARK THAT WE USE
FOR EXCLUDING AREAS VULNERABLE
TO SEA LEVEL RISE, THE
COMMISSION IS NOT WILLING TO
ACCEPT ANYTHING UNDER 5 FT.
BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING HOW
LONG WE WANT STRUCTURES BUILT
TODAY TO LAST WE'RE LOOKING OUT
TO 2100 AND THE LOW AND MODERATE
PROJECTIONS FOR SEA LEVEL RISE,
LOOKING AT ST NUMBERS AND
LOOKING AT FEDERAL NUMBERS ARE 5
FT OR MORE. WE HAVE NOT HEARD
ANY SCIENCE BASED BASIS FOR A 3
FT. BENCHMARK WE WOULD BE
CURIOUS TO HEAR IT. BUT IN
LOOKING AT THE DATA 5 FT IS THE
LOWEST BENCHMARK THAT WE THINK
IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ENSURING THAT
HOUSING WILL ACTUALLY BE
PROTECTED. FOR ITS USEFUL LIFE
AND THAT WE'RE NOT LOCATING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SACRIFICE
ZONES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY
SEA LEVEL RISE AND THE FINAL
POINT. WE APPRECIATE THE OTHERS
WILLINGNESS TO LOOK BEYOND THE
NO. A STANDARD THAT IS CRITICAL
BECAUSE NOAH'S SEA LEVEL RISE
VIEWER DOES NOT LOOK AT BLUFF
EROSION. WHICH IS GOING TO BE
HOW SEA LEVEL RISE MANIFESTS IN
MUCH OF THE STATE. HOWEVER THE
PROPOSED EDITION OF THE OCEAN
PROTECTION COUNCIL STANDARDS IS
NOT WORKABLE. THE OCEAN
PROTECTION COUNCIL DOESN'T DO
SEA LEVEL RISE MAPPING. THEIR
STANDARDS ARE FOR WHEN SEA LEVEL
RISE IS GOING TO OCCUR, NOT
WHERE AND SO THAT'S NOT THE SORT
OF RESOURCE THAT WE WOULD LOOK
AT. WE INSIST THAT A BEST
AVAILABLE SCIENCE STANDARD IS
THE BEST WAY TO CAPTURE OUR
COLLECTIVE INTENT. IT IS THE
PHRASE TO USE FREQUENTLY IN THE
LAW AND NUMBER OF CLIMATE AND
RESOURCE RELATED ISSUES THAT
ALLOWS FOR US TO HOLY LOOK AT
THE BODY OF SCIENCE ON THE TABLE
NOW AND ALSO TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT EVOLUTIONS IN THAT
SCIENCE AS NEW RESOURCES AND
TOOLS BECOME AVAILABLE. ALL OF
THOSE POINTS ARE CAPTURED IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
CIRCULATED BEFORE YOU. WE HOPE
THAT THE AUTHOR WILL RECONSIDER
THEM. AS WE ARE WILLING TO
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION. SHOULD
THEY BE AGREED TO THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
LARA WALSH WITH THE SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION. WE ARE ALSO OPPOSING
THE BILL UNLESS OF THE FULL
COASTAL COMMISSION PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE
ACCEPTED OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN
IS THAT WE AS A FOUNDATION
CANNOT SUPPORT BYPASSING REVIEW
FOR SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UM I
GOT MY MASTERS AT DESCRIPTIONS.
TUTU SHIN OF OCEANOGRAPHY. I'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND STATE AGENCIES
PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE EVER
SINCE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT
WELL EQUIPPED TO PLAN FOR SEA
LEVEL RISE. THE COASTAL
COMMISSION IS FACILITATING THE
USE OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO
KEEP DEVELOPMENT OUT OF HARM'S
WAY WHILE PROTECTING OUR COASTAL
RESOURCES AS THE MAIN HIGH TIDE
LINE MOVES IN I COULDN'T AGREE
MORE THAT 5 FT IS A VERY
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE THAT
ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A LOSS OF
OUR COASTLINE. UM ADDITIONALLY,
I THINK THE OTHER ASPECTS OF, UM
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM UM AND THE L U P
KIND OF SPELLS THE DIFFERENCE ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS BILL.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE
BILL COULD ACT AS A TROJAN
HORSE. THAT WILL INSTEAD OF
SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INSTEAD
DEREGULATE QUALIFIED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ALONG A VERY THIN
STRIP OF LAND THAT CONTAINS SOME
OF THE NATION'S MOST LUCRATIVE
REAL ESTATE. SURFRIDER HAS 30
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ATTENDING
ALMOST EVERY COASTAL COMMISSION
MEETING. WE FEEL VERY CONFIDENT
THAT THIS DEREGULATION WILL
CONTRIBUTE TO HOUSING INTEREST
FOR MULTI FAMILY HOUSING THAT
INCLUDES OCEAN VIEWS AND LUXURY
CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM
CONDOMINIUMS. AND WE WANT THIS.
THESE AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT
WE'RE NOT JUST SELLING OFF THE
COAST TO DEVELOPERS AND INSTEAD
ENSURING THAT THERE IS MINIMUM
STANDARDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THAT ACTUALLY RESULT IN CHANGE
MARKET PRICES. UM WE DO KNOW
THAT IN THIS PROCESS,
STREAMLINING WILL TO SOME EXTENT
, SACRIFICE, UM, COASTAL ACT
COASTAL ACT, UM, THE COAST
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO UPHOLD
THE COASTER ACT AND PROVIDE
MITIGATION FOR COASTAL LOST
COASTAL ACCESS MITIGATION FOR
EROSION CAUSED BY ARMORING OF
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. WE CAN'T
AFFORD TO LOSE THE COASTAL ACT
AGAIN. VOTER APPROVED INITIATIVE
. I THINK THE AMENDMENTS, UM,
APPLY THE PROPER JURISDICTION SO
THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING THAT. AND
I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW,
LIVING IN SAN FRANCISCO WORKING
FOR A NONPROFIT. I COULDN'T
AGREE MORE WITH THE GOALS OF
THIS BILL. WE JUST WANTED TO
FUNCTION PROPERLY AND WE REALLY
HOPE TO WORK TOGETHER AND
SUPPORT THE FULL AMENDMENTS MADE
BY THE COAST COMMISSION. THANK
YOU. TO PAY THIS YOU WANT TO SEE
WHAT I'M. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS PETER
PAPADOPOULOS WITH THE MISSION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OUT
OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MISSION
DISTRICT, WHICH WORKS TO BUILD
EQUITY AMONG LATINO AND OTHER
BIPOD COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS
WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AND WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE ONGOING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE STAFF
THAT WE'VE HAD AND CONVERSATIONS
WE HAVE WITH THE NUMBER OF YEARS
STAFFS. UM WE REMAIN IN OPPOSING
LESS AMENDED POSITION, ALONG
WITH NUMEROUS SAN FRANCISCO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS,
TENANTS, RIGHTS GROUPS AND
HOMELESS ADVOCACY COALITIONS.
AND IT'S FOR A PRINCIPAL REASON
THAT THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO
DO THIS HANDOUT AS WE THINK, IS
NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT EFFECT
THIS COULD HAVE ACROSS THE STATE
, WHICH IS AFTER SERIES ACROSS
THE STATE HAVE SPENT UPWARDS OF
SOMETIMES TWO YEARS DEVELOPING
THEIR NEW HOUSING ELEMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO THE NEW RINA GOALS,
WHICH TOUCHES THIS VERY CLOSELY
THAT'S THIS BILL IS NOW BASED ON
UNIFORM STREAMLINING AND WOULD
OVERRIDE A LOT OF THAT COMMUNITY
PLANNING THAT JUST WENT INTO
THOSE SCENARIOS, WHEREAS IF YOU
LOOK AT THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO HOUSING ELEMENT ON THE
UPPER LEFT. THE T CÁC HIGH
RESOURCE AREAS ARE INTENDED FOR
SELECTIVE STREAMLINING THEIR
INTENDED FOR UP ZONING AND
STREAMLINING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
MAP ON THE UPPER RIGHT, THAT
AREA IS THE AREAS THAT ARE
INTENDED FOR COMMUNITY
STABILIZATION, PROSPERITY,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SOME
CONTINUED MARKET RATE HOUSING.
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE AREAS
WHERE WE'RE ALREADY BUILDING
NEARLY ALL OF THE MARKET RATE
HOUSING AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES
IS INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO STAY
RIGHT IN THOSE SAME LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, WITH THE
VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR BUILDING,
OVERRIDING THEIR AFFIRMATIVELY,
FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING CENTRAL
FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS THESE TWO
TOP MAPS KNOWN AS THE EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING. AND IT
ALSO OVERRIDES EXISTING CULTURAL
STABILIZATION TOOLS THAT WE'VE
PASSED AND IT OVERRIDES THE
TOOLKIT OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENTS
SET OF STABILIZATION AND
PROSPERITY TOOLS, WHICH ARE ON
THE BACK OF THE MAP, WHICH YOU
CAN SEE APPLY TO THE UH, TO
LOWER AREAS AS WELL. EACH OF
THESE PROVISIONS ON THE BACK OF
THE MAPS ARE OVERRIDDEN OR MADE
SILENT BY SB 4 23 AND ITS
CURRENT VERSION. NOW THAT TO SAY
, NUMBER ONE. WE WANT TO SAY WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMPONENT AND OUR AGENCY
ITSELF HAS USED IT ONCE IN THE
FORM OF SP 35 TO BUILD 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. BUT
IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO STREAMLINE
AND INVERT ARE CENTRAL
AFFIRMATIVELY, FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING FRAMEWORK OF OUR HOUSING
ELEMENT. WE'RE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS
DISPLACEMENT ON OUR CULTURAL
CORRIDORS ATTENDANT PRICE
PRESSURES THAT DEMOLITION OF NOT
YET LANDMARK HISTORIC SITES
WHICH WERE WORKING ON SO WE
WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND
LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE DETAILED
HERE IN WHICH YOU HAVE ON FILE,
INCLUDING. CAN WE EXEMPT OR
DELAY EVEN SOME OF THESE
PRIORITY EQUITY GEOGRAPHY? FEES
COULD WE ALSO GRANT H C D WHO
WORKED CLOSELY ON THESE HOUSING
ELEMENTS? CAN THEIR TEAMS BE
GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
FRAMEWORKS ARE LEFT INTACT. THAT
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AS WELL. OR
WE CAN LOOK AT A NUANCED
APPROACH TO THE ENTIRE BILL,
WHICH IS MAYBE WE'RE ONLY MARKET
RATE STREAMLINING IN CITIES THAT
ARE TRAILING THEIR PEERS IN THE
ARENA GOALS BY A PRO RATED 15%
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A
PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD
BY A LOT OF STATEWIDE GROUPS. SO
THOSE ARE REQUESTS ALONG WITH WE
THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUESTS
THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT A BUDDING
INDUSTRIAL ZONE SEEMS VERY
REASONABLE TO US. AND UH, WE
WOULD LOOK FOR YOUR SUPPORT WITH
TRYING TO MOVE THOSE AMENDMENTS
FORWARD AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUED CONVERSATION WITH THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU OTHER
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, AN
OPPOSITION. YES MADAM HERE,
DAVID JONES, ON BEHALF OF THE
TOWN OF TRUCKEE, SAN MARCOS,
STOCKTON AND THE CITIES OF MARIN
COUNTY AND OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MATT ROMAN ON BEHALF
OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AND
CITY OF DOWNEY AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. PAULSON'S
OFFICE SOMEBODY AFTER THE CITIES
OF BELLFLOWER CARSON, GINO, ELK
GROVE, FAIRFIELD, MONTANA,
GLENDORA, INDIAN WELLS, YOUR
GROUP OF VALLEY KERMAN, LA
MORADA, LAKEWOOD, NORWALK PALM
DESERT, PARAMOUNT, RANCHO
CORDOVA READING ROSEMEAD, SANTA
CORITA, SIMI VALLEY, 1000 OAKS,
WHITTIER AND WILL TOMORROW ALL
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
EVENING. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED JULY
3RD AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO
SB 4 23. UNLESS THE BILL IS
AMENDED TO PRESERVE THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE COASTAL ACT
IN THE COASTAL ZONE, THESE
ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE
OF WEST MARIN, THE CALIFORNIA
COAST KEEPER ALLIANCE, THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
STEWARDS OF THE ARROYO SECO,
ORANGE COUNTY COAST KEEPER
COMMUNITY CLEAN WATER INSTITUTE
, NAPA'S YOU'RE A CLUB EXECUTIVE
COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, MANGA
WETLANDS PROTECTORS, FOREST
UNLIMITED RESOURCE RENEWAL
INSTITUTE, SONOMA COUNTY
CONSERVATION ACTION. SOCAL 3 50
CLIMATE ACTION. COASTAL LANDS
ACTION NETWORK CRENSHAW SUBWAY
COALITION. DEFEND BOLOGNA
WETLANDS. CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER OF SAN
DIEGO PROTECT SAN ANTONIO
VALLEY. THE FRIENDS, ARTISTS AND
NEIGHBORS OF ELKHORN SLOUGH.
COASTAL CALIFORNIA COASTAL
PROTECTION NETWORK. WINE AND
WATER WATCH. SMITH RIVER
ALLIANCE, RUSSIAN RIVERKEEPER.
SAVE SONOMA COAST COASTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
CITIZENS PRESERVING VENICE.
OCEAN CONSERVATION RESEARCH
AZUL. BALLOON A WETLANDS
INSTITUTE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COALITION FOR WATER.
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, THE PUBLIC
TRUST ALLIANCE. THE TURTLE
ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK.
PASADENA AUDUBON SOCIETY, THE
RIVER PROJECT, SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA AND THE LOST DORITOS
. WETLANDS LAND TRUST. THANK
YOU. SYLVIA'S ALICIA ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON, ALEX
LOPEZ AND REPRESENTATION OF
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE AND NOT POSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. BRING THAT
WITH PEOPLE ORGANIZING TO DEMAND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
RIGHTS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR HEALTH
AND JUSTICE. WE STRONGLY ALIGNED
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND WE STAND
WITH AN OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
PLEASE PLEASE TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY YEARLY SOTO
FEATURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ATTORNEY UM AND I OPPOSE AND
THERE'S AMENDMENTS TO THAT
PROVIDES SAFEGUARDS FOR OUR
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON JENNIFER
GANADO OF COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT. WE REPRESENT
COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH EAST L. A.
UM WILMINGTON'S LOS ANGELES,
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA AND EAST
OAKLAND. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION
OPPOSING CEMENTED. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SENECA BALL, UM LOS
ANGELES RESIDENT AND IMPOSING,
LESS AMENDED TO INCLUDE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH
SAFEGUARDS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS CAN BE
MARTIN ON BEHALF OF THE CITIES
OF CONCORD, PLEASANT AND TRACY
TUSTIN, MISSION VIEJO HOME,
CHINO HILLS, SUSPIRIA, FULLERTON
AND PLACENTIA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION ALSO HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CITIES OF DUBLIN,
LIVERMORE, SAN RAMON DANVILLE,
PISMO BEACH, LAGUNA BEACH,
NEWPORT BEACH, DELMAR AND HALF
MOON BAY. ALL IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITIONAL IS AMENDED TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS LIST LISTED
IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED
LETTERS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SHARON MEMBERS ERIN
WOOLY ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA WITH AN OPPOSING LESS
SUBMITTED POSITION. THANK YOU.
ETHAN NAGLER ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIES OF CORONA, RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, EAST VILLE, RANCHO,
PALOS VERDE AND CARLSBAD IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
CASTILLO ON BEHALF OF WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY. WE
SUBMITTED A LETTER OF CONCERNS
AND WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH PETER. UM AND
ENSURE THAT THERE WAS PROPER
GUIDELINES. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON BREAK GLAD GUILTY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHARITY
FEDERATION. WE WERE OPPOSING
THIS AMENDED ABOUT GIVEN THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS ON JUNE 19TH.
WE'VE REMOVED THAT SO THANK YOU.
SUZANNE HUME, EDUCATIONAL
DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER OF CLEAN
EARTH FOR KIDS AND OPPOSITION.
WE ECHO THE COMMENTS OF THE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. UM, NEXT, WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND
WE'LL START WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AWARD. THANK
YOU. UM, I WANNA START BY, UM,
MAYBE RECITING SOME OBSERVATIONS
THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE
HOUSING COMMITTEE, WHICH I ALSO
SIT ON AND JUST COMMEND THE
AUTHOR AS WELL FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND
INTRODUCING SP 35 VERY DIFFICULT
. SOMETIMES WE THINK ABOUT
TRYING TO MEET THE CRISIS THAT
WE HAVE OUT THERE TO DELIVER ON
MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, MUCH
OF WHICH ACTUALLY INCLUDES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF
THE PROJECT AS WELL. UM TO
REALIZE THAT WHEN WE'RE HAVING
THESE CONVERSATIONS FOR STATE
LEGISLATION, DOES IT ACTUALLY
PRODUCE AND SP 35 HAS PRODUCED
AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING TO BE
ABLE TO EXTEND THIS AS WELL
BECAUSE WHEN SOMETHING IS
WORKING, WE WANTED TO WORK WELL,
AND I THINK IT'S ALSO THE RIGHT
TIME THAT WE TALK ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ANY
OF THE RESERVATIONS. THAT
HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF THAT
INACTION, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE REACHING AS BROAD OF A
OPPORTUNITIES OAN. FOR THIS
VERY KIND OF MODEL. UH AND SO
WHERE THE COASTAL ZONE WAS
PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED. WHAT IS THE
MAKEUP OF THAT? WHAT IS THE
MAKEUP OF THESE COMMUNITIES,
MUCH OF WHICH ARE IN MY REGION,
BY THE WAY, UM, TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES ARE
AFFORDED THERE WHILE WE ARE
DIGGING INTO AND REFLECTING IN
THE INTENT AND THE RESPECT PCB
THE VOTERS OF WHAT WE WANT TO
SEE ON THE COASTAL ZONE, MAKING
SURE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT
ARE OF ALL SOCIOECONOMIC INCOME
LEVELS BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO
LIVE IN THE SAME COMMUNITIES
THAT THEY WORK REQUIRES US TO BE
ABLE TO THINK ABOUT PRODUCING
THE HOUSING MODELS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY
LOCATE THEM THERE AS WELL. UM
AND SO I HAD A QUESTION. I HAD
SEVERAL QUESTIONS HERE THAT I
KNOW ARE UM, REALLY GERMANE TO,
UM, SORT OF GETTING
CLARIFICATION TRYING TO FIND
TUNE WHAT'S BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE HERE TODAY AS WE'RE
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE
FORWARD ON THE BILL AND
AMENDMENTS TO A BILL, UM, FOR
THIS COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION.
UM FIRST I WANT TO GO INTO THE
QUESTION ABOUT AH, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
AND THEN YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT
WHICH I WANT TO SORT OF MAYBE
STARTING THERE AS A BASIS, AND I
DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT'S UH AS
SCRIPTED SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
PASSED OUT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
OVERVIEW. YEAH. UH, SO. ACTUALLY
BEFORE YOU HAND IT OUT, BECAUSE
I'LL BE JUST, UM. I WANT TO SAY
THIS DIPLOMATICALLY. UM. WHEN
THE COASTAL COMMISSION DECIDED
TO OPPOSE THE BILL, AND WE WERE
NOTIFIED OF THAT THAT WAS IN THE
SECOND HOUSE. IT WAS ONLY A FEW
A MONTH AGO OR WHENEVER THAT WAS
, UM AND THEN WE HAD A WHOLE
LAUNDRY LIST OF ENVIRONMENT.
VERY RESPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS. UM PIOLINE AND
OPPOSITION WHO HAD NOT MET WITH
US AHEAD OF TIME JUST GOING TO
SAY THAT I SAID THAT IN HOUSING
COMMITTEE AND I'M GOING TO SAY
IT AGAIN HERE. TODAY UM, I WANT
TO THANK THE SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION FOR CALLING MY OFFICE
AFTERWARDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THEY HAD NOT ENGAGED WITH US
BEFORE OPPOSING THE BILL. AFTER
THAT HAPPENED, WE IMMEDIATELY I
GOT ON A ZOOM WITH LEADERSHIP AT
THE COMMISSION. AND I TALKED
ABOUT LET'S TRY TO WORK THIS OUT
AFTER. AS I NOTED, AFTER I MET
WITH THE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR
SAID, CAN YOU PLEASE ENGAGE WITH
THEM AND WORK IT OUT? AND I
COMMITTED TO DO THAT. AND WE
PROPERLY SENT A PROPOSED
COMPROMISE. ACTUALLY, SEVERAL
VERSIONS OF A COMPROMISE OVER
THE. ARE ARE SUBSTANTIVE
INTERACTION WITH THE COMMISSION
IN TERMS OF THE COMMISSION'S
PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE. AND NOW TODAY. AND SO
I LOOK FOR WE TOOK THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL AND WORKED
OFF OF THAT PROPOSAL INSTEAD OF
OFF OF OUR PROPOSAL MADE SOME
MODIFICATIONS. THEY DON'T LIKE
SOME OF THOSE MODIFICATIONS. I
AM HAPPY TO SIT AND TALK
DIRECTLY MY OFFICE AND THE
COMMISSION TO WORK IT OUT, AND
I'M OPTIMISTIC. WE'LL BE ABLE TO
WORK IT OUT. BUT I WOULD PREFER
THAT WE DO THAT FACE TO FACE.
AND NOT THROUGH A COMMITTEE OR
NOT AT A COMMITTEE HEARING. SO
YOU KNOW THE COMMITTEE MAKES THE
DECISION. UM AND YOU KNOW, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE
BEEN YOU KNOW, I CALLED YOU ON.
WE TALKED ON SATURDAY. I SAID
LOOK, THE COASTAL COMMISSION
CAME YOU KNOW? MOVED FROM
EXCLUSION, EXCLUDING THE COASTAL
ZONE TO SOMETHING VERY CLOSE TO
THE ONE THAT TOLD YOU YOU GUYS
ARE ACTUALLY VERY CLOSE, RIGHT?
I AM. SO I JUST WANNA YOU KNOW,
THERE HAS BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY. I
FEEL LIKE MY TEAM AND I MADE
THAT HAPPEN. AND I AND, UM AND
THAT'S WHAT A CHAIR AND A
COMMITTEE DOES RIGHT AND YOU CAN
EXCLUDE THE COMMITTEE. RIGHT WE
ARE, IT'S OUR DECISION. AND I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM
, YOU KNOW THAT IS CLEAR, AND WE
HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FACILITATE
UM, THIS AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU KNOW, WE DO. MAKE
THIS DECISION, MADAM CHAIR. I
JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE. I THINK
YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. UM, AND THIS
HAPPENS TO US AS WELL WHEN WE
ARE DEALING WITH OUR BILLS IN
THE SECOND HOUSE AND
CONVERSATIONS COME LATE, AND WE
FIGURE THAT OUT, AND YOU'VE BEEN
VERY ADAPTED DOING THAT THROUGH
ALL OF YOUR VERY DIFFICULT
PIECES OF LEGISLATION. BUT I
KNOW THAT OUR CHAIR IS ALSO
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
IS SOME OWNERSHIP OF
RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS
COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION FOR THE
WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AS IT
PASSES FORWARD, IF YOU IF YOU
YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK MADAM CHAIR FIRST. AS I
ACKNOWLEDGED THE BEGINNING. I'M
NOT SURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANY
OF THIS. HAD YOU NOT ENGAGE,
WHICH I APPRECIATE THAT, AND
IT'S ALWAYS THE DECISION OF THE
COMMITTEE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THAT NORMALLY AS AN AUTHOR, AND
FOR ANY OF US AS AUTHORS WITH
BILLS, IF SOMEONE HAS A BIG
ISSUE, YOU WANT THEM TO COME TO
YOU TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK ON IT. BEFORE IT BECOMES A
PUBLIC THING, BUT I'M COMMITTED
TO BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE RATHER
CLOSE, AND I THINK THERE CAN BE
A RESOLUTION AND I'M I VERY MUCH
WANT THERE TO BE, SO THAT'S I
KNOW THAT YOU ARE SO TO THE
AGAIN SO THAT WE'RE ALL THIS IS
A VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE TODAY. UM
DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE
THE POTENTIAL OKAY AMENDMENTS
THAT THAT WE ARE IN DRAFT FORM.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD
STARTING POINT FOR EVERY DAY TO
BE ABLE TO SEE. SOME OF THE
DETAIL THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS
HERE TODAY. SO ON THE FIRST AREA
OF DETAIL. AS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT 3 FT VERSUS 5 FT, UM,
CERTAINLY SYMPATHETIC BASED ON
THE SCIENCE THAT WE HAVE, UM
THROUGH NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL, OUR OWN CD AGENCIES
COASTAL COMMISSION THAT. 66
INCHES CLOSE TO 5. FT IS SORT OF
THE, UM BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE
TIME TODAY THAT WE BELIEVE IS
LIKELY TO BE THE IMPACT OF SEA
LEVEL RISE BY THE YEAR 2100. UM
AND SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, AND
WE ALSO HAVE BEEN HAVING VERY
BROAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHERE
WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN RESPONSE
TO THAT, IN TERMS OF NOT JUST
BOLSTERING OUR SEASIDE
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ALSO
THINKING ABOUT PUTTING MORE
STRUCTURE IN HARM'S WAY. AND IF
THAT IS AN AREA 3 FT VERSUS 5
FT. I WOULD JUST BE ENCOURAGING
OF THE AUTHOR TO THINK ABOUT,
UM, MAYBE MEETING THE COMMISSION
ON AND POTENTIALLY EVEN MY
INTERESTS AS WELL ON THAT. I
DON'T THINK IN THE GRAND SCHEME
OF THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
LOT OF LAY OF THE LAND IF WE'RE
LOOKING AT A 3 FT BY FIVE VERSUS
5 FT ELEVATION, BUT I THINK IT
DOES RESOLVE. A FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE THAT'S AT PLAY HERE RIGHT
NOW, WHICH IS ARE WE GOING TO BE
ENCOURAGING, MORE INTENSE
DEVELOPMENT, AN AREA THAT IS
LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO SEA
LEVEL RISE? SO I AM I AM, UH,
ALL RIGHT. OPEN TO THE 5 FT. BUT
IT ALSO IS TIED TO WHETHER THERE
IS A STANDARD TO MEASURE THAT
AND THE COMMISSION HAS SAID THEY
WANT TO USE QUOTE UNQUOTE BEST
AVAILABLE SCIENCE, WHICH IS NOT
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. WE'VE
SUGGESTED NO IF THERE'S A
DIFFERENT, UH, MEASURABLE,
OBJECTIVE STANDARD, WE'RE HAPPY
TO. I'M OPEN TO THAT. AND I HOPE
YOU GOT I GUESS I WANTED TO PICK
JUST ASK THE QUESTION BACK TO
THE COMMISSION. YOU KNOW A LOT
OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE
EVEN SOME DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN ADOPTED BY SOME OF MY LOCAL
AGENCIES THAT HAVE DONE SEA
LEVEL RISE. VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS, YOU KNOW, USING THE
OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCILS
GUIDANCE USING NOAH AS AS A
REFERENCE POINT AS WELL. THESE
DO SEEM TO BE TODAY COULD
STANDARDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
? WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TODAY
FROM THESE AND DO YOU HAVE A
SUPERIOR MAPPING AGENCY THAT WE
COULD USE OR CONSIDER I WISH I
HAD ONE SILVER BULLET ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. UNFORTUNATELY A SINGULAR
, PREFERABLE OBJECTIVE STANDARD
SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. I POINTED
TO THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE NOAH
VIEWER WHEN I WAS TESTIFYING,
TALKING ABOUT HOW THAT EXCLUDES
LARGE AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
AFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE AND
SO JUST IN PRACTICE TO USE THE
EXAMPLE THAT YOU REFERRED TO
WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE
LOOKING AT HOW SEA LEVEL RISE
ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTING THEIR
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. WHAT THEY
DO IS THEY TAKE THE LAY OF THE
LANDSCAPE IN TERMS OF MULTIPLE
DATA AND POLICY SOURCES THAT ARE
OUT THERE. THEY ALSO COULD
CONVENE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THEIR JURISDICTION. WHAT IS
THE GEOGRAPHY? WHAT IS THE
GEOLOGY OR THE OCEANIC PROCESSES
WHERE THEY LIVE? THEY ACCUMULATE
ALL OF THAT TOGETHER AND THEY
COME UP WITH WHAT'S GOING TO
WORK FOR THEM. THAT IS WHAT BEST
AVAILABLE. SCIENCE ALLOWS YOU TO
DO. IT DOESN'T WEDGE YOU TO ONE
NECESSARILY INCOMPLETE RESOURCE
. THERE IS NO ONE COMPREHENSIVE
, COMPLETE RESOURCE THAT'S GOING
TO WORK FOR THE WHOLE STATE. AND
SO BEST AVAILABLE. SCIENCE
ALLOWS YOU TO ALLOWS YOU TO
ASSEMBLE THE COMBINATION THAT
WORKS FOR THAT AREA AND ALSO TO
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVOLUTIONS IN
THE SCIENCE SO THAT THIS LAW
DOESN'T BECOME IMMEDIATELY
OUTDATED. SO I'M GONNA SAY
THINGS, SOMETHING THAT'S
ACTUALLY GOING TO CONTRADICT
ITSELF. BUT ON ONE HAND, I AGREE
THAT BY HAVING BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE, THERE IS A SORT OF
STANDARD IN THE STATUTE HERE.
IT'S TOO. IT'S TOO SQUISHY OF A
DEFINITION THAT HOW DO WE
ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT SOMETHING APPLIES OR IT
DOESN'T APPLY? WHO DETERMINES
WHAT IS BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE?
I THINK IT OPENS THE UP TO A LOT
OF INTERPRETATION DOWN THE ROAD,
AND I DO LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE
COULD FIND SOME KIND OF METRIC
AGENCY MAPPING TOOL, WHATEVER WE
CAN TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT
WHEN THIS DOES, IT DOES NOT
APPLY. HOPEFULLY IF THIS MOVES
FORWARD, THAT'S AN AREA THAT
ACTUALLY CAN BE RESOLVED BECAUSE
I AGREE. WE'RE CLOSE ON THIS ON
THIS SUBJECT, BUT I WOULD JUST
CAUTION THAT WE DON'T USE MAYBE
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE. ON THE
OTHER HAND, I AM NERVOUS THAT AS
THE LEVEL RISE MAY OR MAY NOT
PLAY ITSELF OUT, AND AS TIME
GOES ON, IF WE ARE BEING SO
SPECIFIC AS TO LIMIT OURSELVES
TO 3 FT, OR 5, FT THAT WE COULD
BE AN EVEN WORSE CASE SITUATION
HERE DOWN THE ROAD, AND SO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LANGUAGE
AS YOUR IS, THIS CONVERSATION
MIGHT CONTINUE THAT ALLOWS FOR
FLEXIBILITY 20 YEARS FROM NOW.
GRANTED THE MARKET MIGHT
ACTUALLY DETERMINE THAT
FLEXIBILITY FOR US, BECAUSE IF
SOMETHING WERE TO BE SO
CATASTROPHIC, THESE WILL NOT BE
VERY AMENABLE PROPERTIES TO
DEVELOPMENT. YOU WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO ACTUALLY PROBABLY SECURE
THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO BE
ABLE TO END THE LOANS NECESSARY
OR THE INSURANCE NECESSARY TO BE
ABLE TO DEVELOP SO THAT MIGHT
ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF ITSELF.
JUST THINGS THAT NEED TO BE KIND
OF WORKED OUT. YOU KNOW, IN AN
ONGOING CONVERSATION, WHICH
LEADS TO YOU KNOW THE NEXT
POINT, I APPRECIATE AND AGREE
VERY STRONGLY WITH THE NEED TO
WORK OUT WILDFIRE CONVERSATIONS
. UM I THINK MOST OF US AND
MYSELF INCLUDED WITH SOME OF MY
LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN VERY
SENSITIVE THAT WE'VE BEEN UM,
NOT SMART ABOUT BUILDING AN
AREAS THAT ARE MORE AND MORE
PRONE AND MORE AND MORE
HAZARDOUS. UH TOO DANGEROUS
CONDITIONS AND WE'VE SEEN THAT
MANIFEST ITSELF OVER THE LAST
DECADE AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
HOMES THAT LOST OR AT RISK OF
LOSS. AND SO, UM, THIS THIS DOES
NEED TO BE WORKED OUT. I WOULD
HOPEFULLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
INCLUDE OUR CHAIR AT THIS AGAIN
DOES MOVE FORWARD. IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT
COUPLE OF MONTHS, KNOWING THAT
THE INTERESTS OF THIS COMMITTEE
AND ARE VERY TALENTED STAFF HERE
NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS
RIGHT FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE
POTENTIAL ELEMENTS. OKAY? UM
THANK YOU. AND THE LAST THING I
THIS WAS JUST BROUGHT TO MY
ATTENTION THIS MORNING AGAIN.
WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU TOOK
ON REDEFINING 85 FT, UM,
APPLICABILITY AND? AND I GUESS
IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I THE
WAY THAT I SEE IT HERE. YOU'RE
JUST KIND OF CLARIFYING AND THE
AMENDMENT THAT YOU TOOK AND
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS THAT THERE
NEED THAT'S 85 FT. ABOVE. WITH
UM HABITABLE OR WITH RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY. UH OCCUPANCY. UM IT
SEEMS TO READ THE SAME WAY TO
ME. BUT THE ANALYSIS JUMPS AHEAD
AND SAYS THAT IT WOULD ONLY
APPLY. TO US, HIGHER LEVEL OF
INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. COULD
YOU CLARIFY SO IN IN IN THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, AND I
WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK SENATE
LEADERSHIP. FOR REALLY ENGAGING
AND ALL THE VARIOUS LABOR
PARTIES TO TRY TO COME UP WITH,
UM, TO BROKER SOME PEACE. AND SO
WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS THAT
ONE STANDARD UP TO 85 FT, A
DIFFERENT STANDARD ABOVE 85 FT,
WHICH TENDS TO CORRELATE WITH
STEEL CONSTRUCTIONS, DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTION TYPE. UM AND IT'S I
THINK IT'S A REALLY, REALLY GOOD
APPROACH. UM WHAT CAME OUT OF
APPROPRIATIONS AS AN AUTHOR
AMENDMENT WANTED TO THE LANGUAGE
OF THE FIND 85 FT. I THINK SOME
OF OUR FOLKS FELT LIKE THAT,
THAT IT IT COULD BE CLARIFIED IN
TERMS OF COMPLIANCE CONFORMITY
WITH THE BUILDING CODE. SO THE
AMENDMENT THAT WE TOOK BEFORE
BEFORE IT EVEN WENT TO ASSEMBLY
HOUSING WHAT WE VIEWED AS JUST
CLARIFYING AMENDMENT. THE TRADES
, AND MR WATSON'S OCLOCK CLIENTS
DID NOT AGREE AND WANTED IT TO
REVERT BACK TO WHAT CAME OUT OF
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS. IN THE
END, WE JUST DECIDED AS A MATTER
OF PEACE ON EARTH. UM WE CAN DO
THAT BECAUSE I DON'T PERSONALLY
THINK IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. UM, AND SO
WE DECIDED TO REVERT IT, UM BACK
, AND, YEAH, I THINK WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING,
WHICH IS A TECHNICAL
CLARIFICATION. I THINK WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
INTENSITY OR THE SCALE OF A
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T
CHANGE THAT IT'S ABOUT IT'S ONLY
ABOUT THE THRESHOLD FOR WHICH
KIND OF WHICH LABOR STANDARD
APPLIES BECAUSE 85 FT TRIGGERS A
DIFFERENT LABOR STANDARDS. THIS
IS THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT HOW DO
WE PHRASE THAT SENTENCE? THAT
THAT TRIGGERS THE 85 FT. AND
THERE WAS JUST A DISPUTE ABOUT
WHICH LANGUAGE IT SHOULD BE, AND
SO WE REVERTED BACK. IN ORDER TO
NOT CREATE THAT KIND OF, I THINK
CONFLICT THAT WASN'T NECESSARY.
I DON'T KNOW MR WEDGES ON THE
OFFICE, BUT I IN IN THE AUDIENCE
AS WELL. I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO
MAYBE IN THE FUTURE LIKE MORE
CLARIFICATION TO HOW THIS
ACTUALLY WOULD CHANGE AGAIN. THE
FRAMEWORK OF THE OF THE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW,
BECAUSE I SEE IT AS ONE IN THE
SAME UM AND IF WE ARE
SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGING LANGUAGE
THAT IS GOING TO, UM ALSO
CHANGED THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU
VERY CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED AS
WELL. THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN.
I'M JUST NOT CONVINCED THAT
WE'VE ACTUALLY CHANGED THAT.
WOULD YOU AGREE? I CAN SPEAK TO
IT AT THE COURTESY OF CHAIRING
THE COMMITTEE. UM FOR ALL
INTENTS IT MEANS THE SAME THING
. ONE TRACKS CLEAVES CLOSER TO
THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES. I
THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN
ABOUT INVOLVING HUMAN OCCUPANCY
OR USE, UH, IN IT, BUT SO
THEY'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WHICH
WE BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME GETS
THE SAME PLACE. UM THE SHORT
ANSWER IS 85 FT. AND A QUARTER
INCH YOUR HIGH RISE
CONSTRUCTION. IT'S GOING TO BE
USUALLY TYPE ONE. CONSTRUCTION
THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THERE'S
TYPE ONE AND LOWER, SO MAYBE
THAT'S PART OF IT. BUT WHERE
WE'RE STANDING, IT MEANS EXACTLY
THE SAME THING THAT 85 FT. IT
GOES TO A HIGHER LABOR STANDARD.
OKAY UM, I'M GONNA EXPLORE THAT
A LITTLE BIT MORE JUST TO SEE IF
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I'M
MISSING IN AND HOW THAT ACTUALLY
MAYBE CHANGES. THE APPLICABILITY
TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRODUCTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES, BUT
THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED. AND SO
I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, HERE A
LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THAT TO
THAT END, MADAM CHAIR. IF NOT
ALREADY I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION TO MOVE THIS BILL WITH
THE INCLUSION OF THE AUTHOR'S
AMENDMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION AND OPEN IT UP TO THE
REST OF LEISURE. WILDFIRE OR
SORRY. THE WILDFIRE AMENDMENT,
INCLUDING YOUR RIGHT FOR THE
AMENDMENTS TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65 9 13.4, AS WELL AS
THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS HERE FOR
THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONSULT ON WILDFIRE ISSUES. AND
I WILL USE THAT AS A BASIS FOR
STARTING THE MOTION. I, YOU
KNOW, I AM. I HAVEN'T HAD THE
CHANCE TO TALK TO IN THIS
HEARING TO THE I PLAN TO OBJECT
TO THOSE AMENDMENTS. UH AND SO
I'M JUST BEING CLEAR ABOUT THAT
. BUT WE HAVE A LIST OF MEMBERS
THAT ALSO WANT TO SPEAK ON THE I
WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS MOTION,
WHICH IS IN ORDER. AND HAPPY TO
SEE HOW IT GOES ALREADY. WE
ALREADY HAD A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MATHIS. OKAY?
SO THEN I. YOU KNOW, SO UNDER
OUR RULES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
SUBSTITUTE MOTION. IF IT IS
GOING TO RECEIVE A SECOND. CAN
YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOUR MOTION IS
EXACTLY? TO MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD WITH THE AUTHOR'S
DRAFTED AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED
TODAY. WILDFIRE. WITH WHAT
WILDFIRE AMOUNT ON WILDFIRE
INTENT LANGUAGE AS WELL AS THE
AMENDED, COASTAL COMMISSION
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 659 13.4 I DON'T. I
WOULD RATHER DO WHATEVER WE'RE
NOT. WHAT. YEAH TO CLARIFY MADAM
CHAIR RESEND, MEYER FIRST MOTION
AND I WILL. SECOND MR WARD'S
MOTION. TO ACCEPT MR WEINER'S
AMENDMENTS TO MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD. YES. YOU SHOULD PLAN.
LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THESE PAGES,
SO I JUST WANTED THIS TIME. THIS
TIME DRAFTERS. AS IT'S CURRENTLY
DRAFTED, THEN I KNOW OF THE
SENATOR MENTIONED AT THE
BEGINNING THAT HE WAS REVERTING
BACK TO THE LABOR LANGUAGE THAT
UH, CAME OUT OF SENATOR PROBES.
I'M CORRECT, RIGHT? UM THAT'S
NOT CURRENTLY THE WAY WHAT'S IN
PRINT RIGHT NOW. UH AND SO, AND
THE PAGES THAT HE GAVE US DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE LABOR LANGUAGE.
WE WERE SURE WHAT WE'RE VOTING.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH EVERYONE
WHAT WE'RE GOING. I YEAH, IT'S
NOT IN THE WRITING LANGUAGE. WE
HAD BEEN INTENDING TO TAKE THAT
IN A APPROACH THAT WAS, I THINK
WHAT OUR PLAN WAS, BUT I DON'T
HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING ANY POINT
IN TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE
COMMITTED TO IT. SO. THE
ANALYSIS HAS RAISED THIS
LANGUAGE. WE JUST DISCUSSED THIS
LANGUAGE. SO WHICH WHAT IS YOUR
ULTIMATE INTENT OF THE BILL? I
AM AM COMMITTING THAT WE'RE
REVERTING THAT 85 FT LANGUAGE,
PERIOD END OF STORY. IT DOESN'T
MATTER TO ME WHEN WE WENT TO DO
IT AS A PART OF MY MOTION OF THE
SECONDARY AGREES. I WOULD LIKE
TO ACCEPT THAT AS WELL AT THIS
TIME. AGREED. THAT'S WHAT WE
HAVE. SORRY. SO YOU WITHOUT THE
LABOR LANGUAGE WITH. CURRENTLY
IN PRINT. I'M SORRY I MISSED
THIS WITH YOUR AS AS AN EMAIL
ICIS. UH, THE CHANGES IN SECTION
F SHALL BE REVERTED. UH, TO THE
VERSION PRIOR TO THE JUNE 19TH
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS. IT'S NOT
LISTED AS A COMMITTEE AMONG
THOSE ISSUES. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL VERY
CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR MOTION IS
RIGHT. AND AS FROM THIS
COMMITTEE LIKE I BELIEVE THAT
SENATOR WEINER HAS COMMITTED TO
REVERTING TO THE LABOR. WE
DISCUSSED THIS. I HAVE NO ISSUE
WITH HIS COMMITMENT ON THAT SO.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S JUST WITH
REGARD TO THE MOTION THAT YOU
MADE. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF
MEMBERS WHO WANT TO DISCUSS THE
BILL. AND SO I WOULD JUST
REQUEST THAT YOU KEEP OPEN THE
OPTION THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO.
MAKE SUGGESTIONS OR CHANGES SO
YOU KNOW, I LIKE NORMAL PRACTICE
. I WOULDN'T WANT US TO CALL THE
QUESTION UNTIL EVERYONE'S HAD A
CHANCE TO DISCUSS THE BILL AND
THE SUGGESTION AMENDMENTS.
BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE WE MAY
DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT
, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY I'LL BE
LISTENING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SO YOU'RE OKAY. UM, NEXT, I HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN.
ALRIGHT WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR AND THE
CO AUTHOR FOR BEING INCREDIBLE
HOUSING ADVOCATES IN THE STATE.
I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE GOAL TO
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO
PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING IN OUR
COMMUNITIES CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES. BUT I DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL. FIRST I WANT TO SPEAK TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE
THE HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONES ARE ACCURATELY REFERENCED
IN THIS BILL. AS YOU KNOW, THE
STATE, ESPECIALLY MY DISTRICT
WERE SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THE
WILDFIRES A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO
, AND THESE ARE ONLY GOING TO
BECOME MORE INTENSE. SO I THINK
IF WE'RE GOING TO STREAMLINE
HOUSING, WE NEED TO PAY CAREFUL
ATTENTION TO MAKE SURE THAT NEW
DEVELOPMENTS WON'T BE BURNED OUT
SHORTLY AFTER, AND I'D LIKE TO
SEE THESE PROVISIONS TIMED UP.
SECOND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
SETTING THIS PRECEDENT FOR THE
COASTAL ACT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT
HOW TO MEET BOTH STATE GOALS OF
MORE HOUSING AND STRONG COASTAL
PROTECTION IN AN ERA OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE, NOT
PITTING THESE GOALS AGAINST EACH
OTHER. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS EFFORTS TO FIND A MIDDLE
GROUND, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT
AMENDING THE COASTAL ACT IN THIS
WAY IS THE RIGHT APPROACH, AS
THIS APPROACH DOESN'T ADDRESS
THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE
ENACTED IN 1981 WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE TOOK AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OUT OF THE
CULTURAL ACT. THIS BILL APPEARS
TO BE FOCUSED ON MARKET RATE
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING, WHICH
MEANS MORE HIGH END DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT A STRONG REQUIREMENT FOR
WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AND I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR. THE COMMISSION AND SOME
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
WERE NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE
WEEKEND. THANK YOU TO OUR CHAIR
AND YOUR STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK
YOU DID, BUT NEGOTIATING MAJOR
CHANGES TO THE CULTURAL ACT OVER
THE WEEKEND DOESN'T PROVIDE THE
PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
THESE CHANGES, AND IT WAS THE
PUBLIC WHO PASSED THIS LAW TO
PROTECT OUR CALIFORNIA BEACHES
AND COASTAL RESOURCES. AS FAR AS
SEA LEVEL RISE GOES. I THINK THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE THE CASE
THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY
TO DETERMINE STATEWIDE WHAT WILL
BE SAFE FOR THE LIFE OF A
STRUCTURE WITHOUT TAKING
MULTIPLE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT.
THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS THE
AGENCY THAT HAS HAD MORE DIRECT
REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE DEALING
WITH HOW TO SITE AND DESIGN SAFE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE COAST THAN
ANY OTHER AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION
. SO WHY WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE
THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE AND
THE MEDIUM ESTIMATES FOR SEAL OF
A RISE ON A QUESTION THIS
IMPORTANT? GREATLY CONCERNS ME.
THE COASTAL COMMISSION ADVISES
AND GUIDES MOST OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN OUR STATE ON
THESE MATTERS. THEY ALSO GIVE
THEM GRANT FUNDS TO UPDATE THEIR
LOCAL COASTAL PLANS IN ORDER TO
ACCOUNT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE
IMPACTS. AS LEGISLATORS. WE
SHOULD NOT BE QUICK TO
SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THE
EXPERTISE OF TECHNICAL PLANNING
STUFF. I DON'T WANT THE BURDEN
ON MY CONSCIENCE IF WE PICKED
THE WRONG NUMBER AS A STILL
REMEMBER, WARD SAID EARLIER. IF
THE COMMISSION SAYS 5 FT SHOULD
BE THE STANDARD THEN THAT SHOULD
BE BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE AT SPECIFIC FACTORS AT
SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS, AND I
DEFER TO THEM. EARLIER THIS YEAR
, I WATCHED PARTS OF MY
COMMUNITY GET DESTROYED IN THE
ATMOSPHERIC STORMS. SEE LEVEL
RISE. FLOODING AND COASTAL
EROSION ARE NOT THEORETICAL TO
ME OR MY COMMUNITY. IT IS A
REALITY AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
TO ME. SO AS MUCH AS I
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU'RE
DOING AND I AM A HUGE PORTER OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND BUILDING
MORE HOUSING IN OUR STATE. I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS AT
THE COST OF OUR COAST, WHICH
NEEDS OUR STEWARDSHIP AND
PROTECTION. SO THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU, UM I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR FOR AND HIS CO
AUTHOR, THERE ARE THE CHAIR OF
THE HOUSING COMMITTEE IN THE
ASSEMBLY. FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP
AND I DO SUPPORT BUILDING MORE
HOUSING. BUT LIKE MY COLLEAGUE
AH JUST STATED NOT AT THE
EXPENSE. PROTECTING OUR COAST. I
REPRESENT A COASTAL DISTRICT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY. AND JUST TWO
DAYS AGO. THERE WERE AT LAST
COUNT 12 HOMES THAT JUST
COLLAPSED. BECAUSE OF LAND
EROSION. AND WHILE IT'S STILL
BEING INVESTIGATED. THERE'S A
LOT OF SUSPICION THAT THIS IS
ALSO RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE
THAT IT'S RELATED TO THE
TORRENTIAL RAINS THAT WE HAD IN
OUR DISTRICT LIKE WE'VE HAD
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND THAT.
THIS THESE HOMES WERE ZONED IN A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. AND IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING. I'D LIKE TO ASK
THE CULTURAL COMMISSION TO
CONFIRM THIS. THAT PART OF THE
CULTURAL ACT. THE MISSION OF THE
OF THE PURPOSE OF THE COASTAL
ACT IS TO REQUIRE ALL NEW
DEVELOPMENT. TO MINIMIZE RISK
RISK TO LIFE AND PROPERTY. IN
AREAS OF HIGH GEOLOGIC HAZARD.
AND THAT NEITHER CREATES NOR
CONTRIBUTES TO EROSION. OR
GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY. IS THAT
CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AND I WOULD ADD
THAT SP ONE BY PRO TEM ATKINS
SEVERAL YEARS AGO DOUBLED DOWN
ON THOSE POLICIES, ADDING
STRONGER LANGUAGE TO THE COASTAL
ACT TO THAT EFFECT. SO IT
CONCERNS ME DEEPLY. THAT WE'RE
EVEN CONSIDERING A BILL THAT'S
GOING TO WEAKEN. YOU KNOW, IN
THE NAME OF BUILDING MORE
HOUSING FASTER AGAIN. YOU KNOW,
I SUPPORT NOT ONLY THE BUILDING
MORE HOUSING, BUT ALSO ALL THE
JOBS THE UNION JOBS. TO BUILD
MORE HOUSING. I SUPPORT THOSE
GOALS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE
PITTING BUILDING MORE HOUSING AT
THE EXPENSE OF PROTECTING OUR
COAST. YOU KNOW? LAST TIME I
CHECKED. THIS IS THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE AND NOT THE
HOUSING COMMITTEE. AND I WANT TO
REMIND THIS COMMITTEE THAT. THE
COASTAL ACT IS. THE PRIMARY TOOL
FOR US TO PROTECT THIS PRECIOUS
CALIFORNIA COASTLINE THAT WE
HAVE. AND SO I'M JUST I WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THAT I STATED THAT
FOR THE RECORD, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ADDIS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, AND BUT FIRST START
I JUST WANT TO HURT COME BACK TO
ONE OF THE VERY FIRST
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR.
UM THAT I EVER HAD WHEN I WAS
STILL A CANDIDATE, AND I
APPLAUDED YOU FOR YOUR BRAVERY
WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING, AND SO
I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT HERE
TODAY AND SAY, I APPLAUD THE
AUTHOR OF THE CO AUTHOR, ALL OF
THE FOLKS WHO CAME UP FROM
DISTRICT I KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO
DRIVE UP HERE AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. BUT ALSO THIS
CHAIR AND STAFF AND OUR
COLLEAGUES. MANY OF US SPENT
HOURS THINKING ABOUT THIS
TALKING ABOUT THIS TEXTING,
CALLING ONE ANOTHER TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHERE WE'RE AT ON
THIS BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT,
I WOULD SAY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO
MYSELF AND TO EVERY SINGLE
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT WE
GET HOUSING RIGHT WHEN IT COMES
TO THE COASTAL ZONE, AND SO I
THINK EVERY ONE OF US HAS OUR
HEARTS AND OUR MINDS IN THE
RIGHT PLACE AND HAVE BEEN
THINKING DEEPLY ABOUT THIS. I
ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT SB 35. IT'S A
PHENOMENAL BILL. IT EXTENDED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S DONE
WONDERFUL THINGS FOR OUR STATE.
IT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR ME TO
SAY YES TO 4 23. UH IF THE RIGHT
THINGS WERE IN PLACE, WHICH I
DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE AT THIS
TIME. I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME
ON THIS TO MAKE SURE THIS GETS
TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN ALL
FEEL REALLY SOLID BEHIND IT. AND
I WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF
INFO ABOUT MY PERSONAL STORY.
AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU WHY. IT'S
SO DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SUPPORT
US. WE RAISED TWO KIDS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE IN AN 800 SQUARE
FOOT HOUSE AS A TEACHER AND A
CONSTRUCTION WORKER ON THOSE
SALARIES AS MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE.
I HAVE A MOTHER IN LAW WHO WOULD
VERY MUCH LIKE TO LIVE IN THE
COASTAL ZONE. SHE DOES RIGHT
NOW. BUT SHE'S ON A THREE YEAR
WAITING LIST FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. I HAVE CONSTITUENTS
THAT ARE COMING TO ME AND
CALLING MY OFFICE AND TELLING ME
I'M 80 YEARS OLD. I CAN'T FIND
HOUSING, RIGHT? THESE ARE
SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR
OUR DISTRICT. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT
THIS BILL WHAT THIS FEELS LIKE
TO ME IS A TRICKLE DOWN APPROACH
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHAT IT'S
SAYING IS, IF WE JUST BUILD MORE
MY FIT RATE, WE WILL BUILD
ENOUGH MARKET RATE THAT
EVENTUALLY PRICES WILL COME DOWN
. AND THAT MIGHT BE TRUE IN SOME
PARTS OF CALIFORNIA. VERY WELL,
MAYBE I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE
IN THE COASTAL ZONE THAT I
REPRESENT MARKET RATE HOUSING.
WHERE I REPRESENT IS MILLION
DOLLAR HOUSING. IT'S $2.4
MILLION HOUSING. IT'S INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE MARKET RATE HOUSING,
AND I'M NOT SEEING ENOUGH IN
THIS BILL TO LET ME KNOW THAT
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE A
GIVEAWAY TO DEVELOPERS THAT IT'S
ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO INCREASE
INCOME INEQUALITY BY RELAXING
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPERS, AND
I'LL GET TO WHY THOSE STANDARDS
ARE SO IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY
INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
WHICH REALLY AUDITS. CROCS IS
WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, THIS BILL
IS ABOUT GETTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INTO THE COASTAL SOUND,
SO I HAVE AN ISSUE THERE. I
WOULD ALSO SAY I'M INCREDIBLY
CONCERNED AFTER THE FEBRUARY
STORM. EXCUSE ME THAT JANUARY
AND MARCH STORMS THAT WE
EXPERIENCED IN OUR DISTRICT
WHERE WE SAW ABSOLUTE
DESTRUCTION OF THE COAST. WE SAW
CLIFFS FALLING INTO THE WATER.
WE SAW 100 YEAR FLOODS THAT
WE'RE BEING TOLD ARE GOING TO
COME NOW EVERY 30 YEARS. AND THE
HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE MOST
AFFECTED WERE THOSE THAT HAVE
THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RESOURCES
AND IT WAS DEVASTATING FOR
PEOPLE. AND SO I HAVE A LOT OF
CONCERN AROUND ERODING THE
COASTAL ACT. UH THAT IS MEANT TO
PROTECT US AGAINST FLOODS
AGAINST SEA LEVEL RISE AGAINST
GROUNDWATER ENCOURAGING AGAINST
CRUMBLING BLUFFS, BUT ALSO
PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS AND
INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS
BILL AT THIS TIME, I WOULD SAY A
THIRD ISSUE THAT I HAVE
DIFFICULTY WITH. IS I HAVE A
NUMBER OF AREAS IN MY DISTRICT
THAT WOULD LOVE TO BUILD, BUT
THEY DON'T HAVE WATER THERE
UNDER STOP BUILD ORDERS BECAUSE
OF WATER, AND I DON'T SEE
PENALIZING THESE AREAS FOR NOT
MEETING THEIR ARENA NUMBERS WHEN
THE WATER DISTRICT IS TELLING
THEM THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD SO
THEY ARE FEELING BETWEEN A ROCK
AND A HARD SPACE AND THEY'RE
ASKING FOR HELP. THEY'RE NOT
ASKING FOR MORE UNFUNDED
MANDATES. THEY'RE ASKING FOR
HELP TO INCREASE WATER SO THAT
THEY CAN BUILD. I WILL ADD TO
THIS THAT I ALSO HAVE, UH LOCAL
ELECTED TELLING ME DON, WE'RE
BUILDING. WE WANT TO BUILD.
WE'RE PUTTING MONEY BEHIND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE DOING
EVERYTHING I CAN. AND AS A
COUNCIL MEMBER, I PERSONALLY
HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S ALMOST
DONE. IT'S JUST KIND OF WAITING
ON A COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE OF
SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS ALMOST DONE. BUT WE ALSO
APPROVED THE MARKET RATE
HOUSING. I DO BELIEVE THAT
DEVELOPERS GOING TO MAKE
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
DEVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN
ANY KIND OF SHORTCUTS TO BE ABLE
TO DO THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND SO,
UH, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS ARE
HAPPENING BUILDING IS HAPPENING
FOR MY PARTICULAR COASTAL
DISTRICT, THOUGH THESE ARE VERY
, VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES TO SAY.
WE SHOULD GIVE UP THE COASTAL
ACT WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FROM IT. SO UM, I AGAIN WANT TO
REITERATE MY SUPPORT FOR US. BE
35. I THINK EVERYTHING I'VE SAID
HERE IS NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY
TODAY, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME
EASY SOLUTIONS. WE JUST HAVEN'T
GOTTEN THERE YET. SO THAT'S WHY
I'M HAVING SUCH DIFFICULTY IN
UP. PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WHAT? THANK YOU
, MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHORS FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I SUPPORTED SB 35. AND
I THINK I THINK THE WORK THAT'S
THAT'S COME OF THAT, I THINK HAS
PROVED ITS PROVED ITS CASE. UM
UM I REPRESENT 300 MILES OF
COASTLINE MORE THAN ANY MEMBER
IN THIS ROOM. AND VERY LITTLE OF
THAT LAND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THIS, UH TO THIS VERY, VERY
LITTLE. UM AND, UM YET WE STILL
STRUGGLE WITH HOUSING AND THOSE
AREAS THAT WOULD AND SO I HAVE A
COUPLE OF A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS,
AND THEN I GOT A COUPLE MORE
COMMENTS I SEE IN YOUR IN YOUR
AMENDMENTS. YOU MENTIONED.
HAVING IN LIEU OF BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE HAVING A NOAH BE THE
ARBITER OF WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
HEIGHT IS AND SO UM I'M GONNA
SUPPORT YOU ON THAT. MAYBE, AND
MAYBE HAVE YOU CONSIDERED
SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO THAT AS
WELL, UM, FOR ME BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE, I THINK COULD BE IN THE
ISA OF THE INTERPRETER AND NOT
NECESSARILY INCLUSIVE OF ALL
SCIENCE THERE. I WOULD BE A
LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE THAT
THERE WERE ORGANIZATIONS NAMED
AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO JUST BE
NOAH, BUT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,
POSSIBLY AS WELL WHERE THERE IS
ACTUALLY A CONSENSUS AND NOT AND
NOT, AND I THINK I JUST FEEL
LIKE THAT BEST AVAILABLE.
SCIENCE COULD BE USED BY
SOMEBODY WANTS US TO TALK
HEALTHCARE. SOMEBODY MIGHT FEEL
THAT MAYBE VACCINES OR OR SOME
OTHER HEALTH CONDITION. IN THEIR
MIND THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO COULD
COULD SKEW THE WAY THEY LOOKED
AT. I THOUGHT HEALTHCARE WAS WAS
COMPLICATED, AND SO WE STARTED
SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, SO I
MY HAT IS REALLY OFF TO YOU. UM
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S MY
CONSIDERATION. THERE I AM. I AM
CONFUSED AND NOT NOT UNUSUAL. UM
BUT IN THE COASTAL COMMISSION
COMPROMISE AMENDMENTS, THERE IS
THE NUMBER 1235 SAYS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, ONLY PARTIAL ZONE
FOR RESIDENTIAL OR MULTI FAMILY
WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE STEAM
LINE, STREAMLINED PROCESS. THE
WAY I READ YOUR BILL. THAT'S
WHAT YOUR BILL SAYS. SO HELP ME
CLARIFY. WHY ARE THEY ASKING FOR
AN AMENDMENT WHEN IT'S ALREADY
IN YOUR BILL FROM MY
INTERPRETATION? YES SO THANK YOU
FOR, UH, FOR THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. UM SP 35 ONLY APPLIES TO
MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL, UH,
PERIOD. THAT'S WHAT THE BILL IS
ABOUT. SP 35 DOES NOT ALLOW
COMMERCIAL CONVERSION. THERE ARE
OTHER LAWS THAT THIS LEGISLATURE
HAS PASSED, INCLUDING TWO LAST
YEAR THAT THAT IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES, USP 35 DOES NOT
ALLOW FOR CONVERSION FROM
COMMERCIAL OR ANYTHING ELSE TO
RESIDENTIAL. IT APPLIES TO LAND
WHERE YOU CAN, WHERE YOU ARE
ALLOWED TO BUILD MULTI UNIT
RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WOULD BE AS
SUPERFLUOUS AMENDMENT BECAUSE
THAT THE BILL IS ALREADY ABOUT
RESIDENTIAL MULTI UNIT. THANK
YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE
WAY I WAS READING IT, SO I HAVE
CONFUSED. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY
WHITE THAT AMENDMENT? WHICH
MIMICS HIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE I
DON'T GET IT TO. YEAH THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL AND SP 35
SPEAKS WHEN IT LISTS OUT THE
ELIGIBLE AREAS WHERE THE
STREAMLINING PROCESS WOULD TAKE
PLACE. IT APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL
ZONES. THE MIXED USE ZONES, AND
IT CONTAINS A REFERENCE TO THE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND
AREAS WHERE MULTI FAMILY HOUSING
IS ALLOWED UNDER THAT ACT, WHICH
INCLUDES OFFICE, RETAIL,
COMMERCIAL AND OTHER LISTS OR
OTHER ZONING DESIGNATIONS, SO NO
THIS BILL DOES NOT INVOLVE
CONVERTING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF A SITE. BUT IT
DOES REFER TO THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, WHICH MAKES
MULTI FAMILY PERMISSIBLE USE ON
THOSE OTHER ZONES. SO LET ME GO
AHEAD. FIRST OF THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT DOES NOT
CHANGE ANY ZONING. THAT'S A 40
YEAR OLD LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE
TO. YOU BASICALLY CAN'T CHANGE
THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
GAME, AND IF YOU ZONE FOR
SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO ALLOW
PEOPLE TO BUILD TO THAT FOR
HOUSING THERE. I THINK THERE HAS
BEEN SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE
SENATE BILL SIX, WHICH
LEGISLATURE PASSED LAST YEAR BY
SENATOR CABALLERO, WAS SIGNED
INTO LAW. WHICH DOES ALLOW FOR
CONVERSION FROM COMMERCIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL AND CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES DOT LAW REFERS TO
SP 35 STREAMLINING ITS A CROSS
REFERENCE, BUT THAT'S NOT SP 35
. IN ADDITION, SB SIX AS I
UNDERSTAND IT HAS A SAVINGS
CLAUSE TO THE COASTAL ACT. UH,
STILL FULLY APPLIES. UM AND SO I
JUST I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
AND I'M STATING HERE. THAT S U
35. AND IT'S OUR INTENT. I THINK
IT'S WHAT THE BILL DOES IS
ABOUT. RESIDENTIAL MULTI UNIT
MIX. WHEN I SAY THAT MIXED USE
YOU CAN HAVE UP TO ONE THIRD OF
THE BUILDING BE NONRESIDENTIAL
AND THAT STANDARD IN THE
LEGISLATURE FOR HOUSING BILLS.
THANK YOU. UM I'M GOING TO MOVE
ON NOW. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AND I
DON'T YOU KNOW, I'M VERY
PROTECTIVE OF THE COASTLINE.
IT'S A HUGE PART OF MY DISTRICT.
IT'S A HUGE PART OF WHAT YOU
KNOW WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND CALL
CALL IT HOME AND THOSE PEOPLE
WHO COME AND VISIT SO I'M I'M
I'M VERY, VERY PROTECTIVE OF
THAT. SO THIS IS A REALLY
BALANCE. THIS IS A DIFFICULT
BALANCING ACT FOR THIS. BUT I GO
BACK TO THE FACT THAT WHAT
YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS IN AREAS
THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED FOR
HOUSING. WE'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT
ASKING TO EXPAND ZONING. YOU'RE
ALREADY LOOKING AT AREAS THAT
ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE
ALREADY ZONED FOR HOUSING.
CORRECT THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF
YOU IF YOU ANALYZE THE ENTIRE
GEOGRAPHY OF THE COASTAL ZONE
UNDER WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY
IMPRINT, I'M NOT EVEN TALKING
ABOUT ANY COMPROMISE. WHAT'S
CURRENTLY IN PRINT. IN THE BILL
. HAIR ANALYSIS IS THAT THAT 85%
OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COASTAL
ZONE WOULD STILL BE EXCLUDED
BECAUSE IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT ZONED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE MULTI UNIT IT'S
NOT INFILL BECAUSE THE BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO URBANIZED INFILL
AREAS. SO THE LARGE MAJORITY OF
THE COASTAL ZONE ON THE NATURAL
IS SIMPLY NOT PART OF THIS. THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THAT EVEN THE
ONES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING
EXCLUDE EVEN MORE OF THE COASTAL
ZONE. UM SO WHAT I AM YOU
MENTIONED AND I'M KIND OF
SURPRISED TOO, BECAUSE I BECAUSE
I KNOW YOU AND I KNOW HOW HARD
YOU WORK YOUR BILLS. THAT IN THE
SENATE, THIS THE ISSUES WE'RE
ALL AROUND LABOR AND SUDDENLY IN
THIS HOUSE SUDDENLY BECAME VERY
, VERY DIFFERENT. I THINK HAD
YOU KNOWN THAT THEY WERE GOING
TO BE OBJECTIONS. I KNOW YOU
WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
AND SO, UH, SO I WANT TO. I WANT
TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS. WHAT
WHAT TROUBLES ME ABOUT THE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND THE PROCESS
HERE IS ONCE THE BILL LEAVES A
COMMITTEE, UM THE ONLY
OPPORTUNITY THE COMMITTEE WILL
MEMBERS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WILL
HAVE TO ENGAGE WILL BE, YOU KNOW
, IN A SUBSEQUENT COMMITTEE OR
ON THE FLOOR, SO IT WOULD BE I'D
LOVE FOR IT TO COME BACK FOR US
TO SEE THE FINAL PRODUCT, BUT I
DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NO
MECHANISM FOR THAT, AS FAR AS
THE PHANTOM AWARE OF SO, BUT I'M
NOT. I'M NOT BLAMING YOU FOR
THAT. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST THE
WAY THIS HAS WORKED OUT. AS I
SAID, I THINK HAD YOU KNOWN THIS
WAS GOING TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE.
YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN A GONNA
BEGAN ADDRESSING THIS WHEN THE
BILL WAS INTRODUCED, SO, SO I
APPRECIATE THE QUANDARY THAT YOU
FIND YOURSELF IN. UM AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU. WE'VE HAD
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FIRE.
FIRESTONE'S I THINK, UH, YOU
KNOW, MY COMMUNITY WAS ONE OF
THE FIRST TO EXPERIENCE ABSOLUTE
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE. AND MY
CONCERN ABOUT, UM THE MAPS AND
THE EFFECTS OF THE MAPS ON HOW
AND WHERE HOUSING MIGHT BE MIGHT
BE BUILT, UM, TAKES TO THE TO
THE NEXT LEVEL. THERE ARE
HISTORIC AREAS IN MY DISTRICT
THAT ARE FIRE PRONE. UM AND
WE'VE BUILT AND THEN BURNED AND
THEN REBUILD. AND SO MAYBE AT
SOME POINT, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE
TO BUILD AGAIN AND WATCH IT BURN
AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, SO I
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT, UM THAT CAL
FIRE WILL HAVE YOU KNOW
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION
AND SO FORTH, BUT IT DOESN'T
THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS CONSIDER THE
FACT THAT THERE'S A FUNNEL THERE
AND WHEN YOU WHEN A FIRE GETS
STARTED, IT JUST MOVES THROUGH
THERE. QUICKLY. SO UM, BUT THE
OTHER ISSUE OF CONCERN IS THAT
AND WE SEE TODAY JUST THIS OVER
THE WEEKEND OR TODAY THAT
INSURERS ARE NOW BACKING AWAY
FROM ENSURING. YOU KNOW, WE'VE
NOW HAD THREE CARRIERS WHO ARE
SAYING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
WRITE NEW POLICIES. AND SO FOR
US TO AUTHORIZE AND BUILD
HOUSING IN AN AREA WHERE
INSURERS ARE NOT GOING TO ENSURE
MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO PEOPLE
AREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO BUY
THAT, OR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO OCCUPY THAT, AND IT
WOULD BE. IT WOULD BE HUGELY
PROBLEMATIC. SO THAT'S PART OF
THE CONSIDERATION AS WE GO
FORWARD, SO I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON THAT.
THANK YOU. IF YOU HAVE IF YOU
HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, THE
INSURANCE ISSUE OBVIOUSLY, IT'S
A HUGE. IT'S A HUGE ONE IN THE
WILD FIRE ZONES OR EVEN NOW
SEEING IT OUTSIDE OF WILD
PERSONS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.
EVEN IN SAN FRANCISCO, WE'RE
SEEING THERE'S AN INSURANCE
MELTDOWN HAPPENING AND IN TERMS
OF HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE IN
PARTICULAR, BUT IT STARTED IN
THE WILDFIRES OWNED AND ITS MOST
ACUTE IN THE WILD FIRE ZONES.
AND THAT AFFECTS HOUSING
GLOBALLY. IT'S A BROADER ISSUE
THAN ANYONE, BILL, BUT I AGREE
WITH YOU. THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM
, AND I PRAY THAT IT GETS FIXED
BECAUSE IT'S IMPACTING OF WIDER
AND WIDER SWATH OF CALIFORNIA.
OH I THINK I THINK IT EXTENDS
FAR BEYOND JUST WILDFIRE. I
THINK IT EXTENDS BEYOND DESIRE
TO NOT WRITE POLICIES IN THE
STATE PERIOD. SO THAT'S THAT'S
MY INTERPRETATION. GETTING CALLS
IN MY DISTRICT ABOUT THAT TO
HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING COUNT
GOING TO BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL
TODAY BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THIS AND COUNTER RESOLUTION. I
JUST WISH THERE WAS A MECHANISM
FOR US ALL TO COME BACK TOGETHER
AGAIN AND HEAR THAT, BUT I GUESS
IT WILL BE ON THE FLOOR. SO
THANK YOU. THERE IS I MEAN,
USUALLY THE COMMITTEE CAN PULL
THE BILL BACK. RIGHT WELL OR FOR
DISCUSSION OR HUH? DISCUSSION
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT A
MECHANISM YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW.
UM WE CAN PULL IT BACK. OKAY.
WELL OKAY. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THANKS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PER. SO FIRST
OF ALL, THANK YOU. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THE AUTHOR, UH, SPENT WITH ME
AND FOLKS WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION THIS WEEKEND AS WELL
AS A WHOLE HOST OF FOLKS IN THE
, UH, YOUR BILL, SPONSORS AND
FOLKS IN THE PRO HOUSING AND PRO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY.
AND YOU KNOW, THIS BILL IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT ONE. AND YOU
KNOW, AS IS THE CASE WITH BILLS
THAT TACKLE IMPORTANT AND
COMPLICATED ISSUES, UM, GETTING
TO THE RIGHT PLACES COMPLEX, AND
IT REQUIRES THAT WE DO A LOT OF
WORK TO SORT OF GET TO THE RIGHT
PLACE. AND I THINK WHAT SORT OF
SHAPING MY THINKING ABOUT THE
BILL IS THAT YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA HAS THE HIGHEST
POVERTY, FUNCTIONAL POVERTY RATE
OF ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY. UM
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK
THAT AND OF THE FUNCTIONAL
POVERTY RATE IS ONE THAT TAKES
INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF LIVING
AND THE COST OF HOUSING AND THE
COST OF ENERGY AND, UM, YOU
KNOW, IT'S HIGHER THAN WEST
VIRGINIA. IT'S HIGHER THAN
ARKANSAS. IT'S HIGHER THAN A LOT
OF THESE STATES THAT WE THUMB
OUR NOSE AT. AND THE REASON FOR.
THAT IS BECAUSE THE COST OF
HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA IS SO
HIGH, SO YOU KNOW, I DO THINK
THAT WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO INCENTIVIZE AND REMOVE
THE BARRIERS TO BUILDING MORE
HOUSING AND MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW,
OF COURSE, THIS BILL WOULD TAKE
THE THING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN
SP 35 IS THAT REMOVES THE
EXEMPTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
AND I'VE HAD ROBUST INPUT FROM
EVERY SIDE MORE THAN TWO SIDES
ON THAT, UM, I'VE HEARD FROM
INLAND CITIES THAT I REPRESENT,
AND HOUSING ADVOCATES ARGUING
THAT EVERY PART OF THE STATE
SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO
SOLVING OUR HOUSING CRISIS. UM
AND I AGREE WITH THAT. I'VE ALSO
HEARD SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FROM
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AND
THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE
HILLSIDE FEDERATION WORRIED
ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
THIS BILL, UM AND YOU KNOW,
CONTRARY TO THE CHARGED RHETORIC
THAT'S COMING FROM SOME OF THE
HOUSING ADVOCATES THAT WAS
DIRECTED AT ME IN PARTICULAR. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
MOVE FORWARD UNDERSTANDING THAT
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
GET THIS RIGHT IN THE COASTAL
ZONE. YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT
WE ALL SHARE THE SAME GOALS. AND
THAT IS, UM AND I THINK EVEN THE
MOST ARDENT HOUSING ADVOCATES
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HOUSING
HOUSING ISN'T BEING BUILT ON A
ROAD IN COASTAL BLUFFS OR AREAS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF
SEA LEVEL RISE. I DON'T THINK
ANYONE WANTS DEVELOPERS TO BE
ABLE TO BULLDOZE SENSITIVE
HABITAT AREAS OR WETLANDS OR
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS. UM AND NO
ONE THE HOUSING. UM UH,
ADVOCATES INCLUDED WANT TO TAKE
AWAY PROTECTIONS THAT AFFORD
MORE TO PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS IN
THE COASTAL ZONE. WHEN I LOOK AT
THESE TWO, I WANT TO SAY THIS
THIS CAME FROM. I THINK SENATOR
WEINER'S OFFICE AND THIS BECAME
FROM THE COASTAL STAFF. THEY
SEEM VERY CLOSE TO ME. I MEAN,
REALLY, IT'S WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THIS ONE ISSUE RELATED TO SEA
LEVEL RISE AND THE 3 FT. 5 FT.
MY OWN VIEW ABOUT THAT. IS THAT
I'D RATHER HAVE THE BOARD
PROTECTIVE NUMBER IN THERE. BUT
I ALSO THINK THAT IT DOES NEED
TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S MORE
SPECIFIC. SO I'M HOPING THAT AS
WE MOVE FORWARD, THAT WE WILL
TRY TO GET TO THE BOARD
PROTECTIVE NUMBER AND THAT WE
GOT TO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE
SPECIFIC. UM YOU KNOW, I'VE
LOOKED AT THE BILL WITH TWO
OBJECTIVES ADVANCING HOUSING,
INCLUDING IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
BUT ALSO PROTECTING OUR MOST
SENSITIVE COASTAL AREAS. AND YOU
KNOW, I SAY THAT I THE DEVIL'S
IN THE DETAILS. I SPENT A LOT OF
TIME OVER THE WEEKEND THINKING
THROUGH, REALLY EVERY. BAD
OUTCOME. THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH
THIS BILL, INCLUDING WITH THE
EXEMPTIONS IN PLACE, AND I GOT
TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT THERE
WERE A LOT OF GUARDRAILS THAT
WERE ALREADY IN PLACE IN THE
BILL, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT YOU'VE MOVED EVEN
FURTHER. UM ON THOSE THINGS,
THERE ARE BETTER PROTECTIONS IN
THE BILL FOR WETLANDS AND
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT YOU ACTUALLY MOVED
TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S
DEFINITIONS FOR THAT. AND
HAGLAND. THE BILL ALREADY
APPLIES ONLY AT INFILL AREAS. UM
IN FACT, HAS TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT
ON ALL THREE SIDES. IT'S I THINK
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
IMPROVEMENT THAT THE BILL
DOESN'T APPLY IN, UM IN PEEL
JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE
. THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COASTAL
COMMISSION NEEDS TO PROTECT
PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE COAST.
UM AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL. THAT MAKES
ME COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THIS.
TODAY I DO SAY I DO HAVE TO
REALLY IMPORTANT CONTINUING
CONCERNS, AND THAT'S RELATED TO
THE HIVE. THE WILDFIRE RISK, UM,
SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE
HILLSIDE FEDERATION. THAT IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT GROUP IN MY IN
MY JURIST IN MY JURISDICTION,
AND I DO NOT THINK THAT THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE BILL
RELATED TO WILDFIRES IS
PROTECTIVE ENOUGH. I'LL JUST
SORT OF SAY THAT I'VE SHARED
THAT WITH YOU ALREADY. UM I
APPRECIATE THE INTENT LANGUAGE
THAT'S BEING PUT IN AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR OFFER TO MAKE
SURE THAT FOLKS FROM THE
HILLSIDE FEDERATION, IN
PARTICULAR INCLUDED IN SOME OF
THE DIALOGUE WITH CAL FIRE. UM
YOU KNOW, THOSE AREAS ARE ONES
THAT IF YOU WENT TO TOPANGA
CANYON AND MANDEVILLE CANYON,
THEY HAVE YOU KNOW THE WAY THAT
THE BILL IS CURRENTLY
STRUCTURED, WE HAVE, UH, AN
EXEMPTION FOR HIGH AND VERY HIGH
RISK FIRE ZONE AREAS, BUT THEN
IT SORT OF TAKEN BACK AND SAYS,
AS UNLESS YOU'RE COMPLYING,
ESSENTIALLY WITH BUILDING CODES
THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN THESE
JURISDICTIONS, YOU KNOW, DOING
SOMETHING LIKE PUTTING ON A, UM
YOU KNOW, FIRE RETARDANT RUFER
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IS NOT GOING
TO BASICALLY PROTECT PEOPLE FROM
THE INGRESS AND EGRESS AREAS IN
THESE AREAS, SO I THINK IT COMES
DOWN TO YOU KNOW, ARE THERE
PARCELS IN THESE AREAS THAT ARE
SUBJECT TO THE LAW? WE COULD NOT
FIGURE THAT OUT OVER THE
WEEKEND? I APPRECIATE ALL THE
TIME YOU TOOK WITH THAT AND I
THAT'S WHY I'M COMFORTABLE WITH
THE INTENT. LANGUAGE NOT THAT
I'M COMFORTABLE TAKING OUT
PROTECTIONS. I HOPE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE VERY STRONG
PROTECTIONS RELATED TO THESE
FIRES OAN AREAS AS WELL AS IN
THE COASTAL COMMISSION, WHERE I
THINK WE REALLY DO NEED TO HAVE
THE MORE MORE PROTECTIVE
STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SEA
LEVEL RISE, BUT I, BUT I KNOW
THAT YOU SHARE THESE GOALS AS
WELL. GOALS OF BOTH MAKING SURE
WE CAN ADVANCE HOUSING AND
PROTECT OUR COASTAL ZONE
ADEQUATELY. AND I TRUST THAT
YOU'LL DO THAT. AND YOU KNOW
WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL. BUT REALLY,
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU TAKE SERIOUSLY.
THESE CONCERNS ARE BEING RAISED
BY ME AND OTHERS THAT ARE ON THE
DAY IS TODAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN. I
DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT WITH
EVERYONE ELSE, BUT I DO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHORS FOR THEIR WORK
AND ALSO THEIR WILLINGNESS TO
ENGAGE ON THE ISSUES WITH MANY
OF US OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS
, AND ALSO THE SPONSORS. UM, I
THINK THAT I THINK THERE'S
ACTUALLY A LOT MORE AGREEMENT,
EVEN WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE
OPPOSED THAN DISAGREEMENT. IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ISSUES ARE
SURROUNDING SOME OF OUR AREAS
THAT ARE THE MORE PROBLEMATIC
AREAS IN THE STATE BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE QUITE HONESTLY. AND YOU
KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HAVING A
DISCUSSION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS
IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT ARE
THERE AREAS THAT ARE JUST TOO
HAZARDOUS TO BUILD IN OTHER
AREAS IN THE STATE? THAT ARE TOO
RISKY FOR PEOPLE. WE HAD THIS
DISCUSSION WHEN I WAS CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT PARADISE
WHEN ONE OF THE MEMBERS WANTED
TO EXPEDITE REBUILDING IN THAT
AREA, AND WE HAD THESE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ARE THERE
AREAS WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO BE
ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO MOVE BACK
INTO AN AREAS WHERE WE WANT THEM
TO ACTUALLY MOVE SOMEWHERE?
THAT'S MORE DEFENSIBLE. ARE
THERE PLACES WHERE WE WE'VE
ALREADY HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE
STATE? ALONG THE COAST OF TRYING
TO GET COMMUNITIES TO ACTUALLY
START THE PROCESS OF MAYBE
STARTING TO MOVE PEOPLE INLAND
AND TO SORT OF TRY TO D HOUSE
SOME OF THE AREAS THAT ARE MOST
VULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL. AND A
LOT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I'VE
HEARD IS AROUND THOSE AREAS AND
I DO THINK THAT WE CAN COME TO
SOME SORT OF AN AGREEMENT, AND I
THINK WE'RE CERTAINLY BEEN
GETTING CLOSER OVER THE LAST FEW
DAYS. UM YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN
A SUGGESTION WITH THE HIGH FIRE
SEVERITY ZONES OF JUST EXEMPTING
THEM COMPLETELY OUT OF THIS BILL
, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY I'M NOT
FOR THAT. AND THE REASON IS
BECAUSE I WAS REPRESENTING ONE
COMMUNITY THAT WERE THE 100% OF
THE CITY IS IN A HIGH FIRE
SEVERITY ZONE. AND THIS IS A
CITY THAT'S BEEN VERY RELUCTANT
TO ADD ANY MULTI FAMILY HOUSING
WHATSOEVER, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S
ALSO A HIGHWAY WITHIN THE CITY.
AND AREAS THAT ARE FRANKLY
FAIRLY DEFENSIBLE THAT HAVE GOOD
INGRESS AND EGRESS. AND SO THE
ISSUES WERE. THE CITY HAS BEEN
NOT WANTING HOW THE MULTI FAMILY
HOUSING IN MY MIND IS NOT REALLY
ABOUT SAFETY. IT'S ABOUT
REMAINING AN EXCLUSIVE ENCLAVE.
AND FORCING PEOPLE TO COMMUTE
INTO THOSE INTO THOSE AREAS. AND
THERE ARE AREAS LIKE THAT THAT
THERE SHOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE
STANDARD WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT
THEM AND SAY THE INGRESS AND
EGRESS IS GOOD. THEY'RE FAR
ENOUGH AWAY FROM CHAPARRAL.
THERE ARE ENOUGH INFO THAT WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPEDITE AND
STREAMLINE HOUSING IN THOSE
AREAS, EVEN THOUGH ON THE MAP.
THEY ARE HIGH FIRE SEVERITY
ZONE, AS IS THE REST OF THE
COMMUNITY. AND YET, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THERE ARE AREAS IN THE
SAME COMMUNITY WHERE YOU CAN'T
GET A FIRE TRUCK UP THE HILLS
BECAUSE IT'S WINDY AND NARROW.
AND SO TRYING TO COME UP WITH A
WAY WHERE YOU SATISFIED THE
CONCERNS OF, YOU KNOW THE VERY
RIGHTFUL CONCERNS OF NOT
CREATING MORE BUILDING IN AREAS
THAT YOU CAN'T GET PEOPLE
EVACUATED OUT OF EASILY. UM THAT
IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE HAVE
RAISED THAT AS AN ISSUE, BUT I
THINK A BLANKET EXEMPTION ON
HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES WITH
COMMUNITIES I'VE REPRESENTATIVE
ACTUALLY. WOULD GIVE COMMUNITIES
A PATH AND ALLOWING MULTI FAMILY
AND SENIOR HOUSING, WHICH WAS
PROPOSED. FROM AREAS THAT ARE
JUST AS OFFENSIVE ALLOWS OTHER
PARTS OF LOS ANGELES SO I THINK
THAT, UM THERE'S MORE
CONVERSATION, AND I AGREE. THE
PROCESS IS HARD BECAUSE RIGHT
NOW THERE'S ONLY THE FLOOR AND
THERE'S ONLY APPROPRIATIONS AND
THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO
SEE THAT WORK DONE. SO I DON'T
QUITE KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT
THAT. BUT I KNOW THAT YOUR
INTENT IS TO IS GOOD. UM IN
TERMS OF THE COASTAL, I THINK
THAT YOU GUYS ARE SO CLOSE ON
LANGUAGE THAT I CAN SEE. I'M
MORE COMFORTABLE WITH 5 FT AND 3
FT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE
SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE. AND I
DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE ON YOUR
SIDE YOU KNOW, IS SAYING LIKE,
NO, IT'S GOT TO BE THREE AND NOT
FIVE. I ALSO FEEL LIKE MAYBE
THERE'S A WAY WITH THIS, NOLAN
QUESTION TO SAY NOLA AND OTHER
BEST, YOU KNOW, SCIENCE SO THAT
YOU KIND OF OPENED THE DOOR TO
HAVING MORE. YOU KNOW, MAYBE
THERE'S A WAY OF DOING THAT. I
DO THINK THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF
US HERE WOULD FEEL MORE
COMFORTABLE PASSING THE BILL OUT
WITH AT LEAST SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS, EVEN IF WE'RE GOING
TO KEEP WORKING ON THEM, AND I
WANT TO. I MEAN, I'M GONNA ALLOW
YOU TO. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU
WHAT YOU THINK IN A IN A SECOND,
BUT GO AHEAD. IF YOU WANT TO
JUMP A. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
IF WE CAN HAVE AN OBJECTIVE WAY
OF MEASURING THIS DEAL LEVEL
RISE. WE THOUGHT NOAH WAS A GOOD
APPROACH IF THE COMMISSION HAS
OTHER OBJECTIVE WAYS OF DOING
IT. THAT AREN'T SORT OF
NEBULOUS, SUBJECTIVE. WAY OF
DOING IT, THEN WE WOULD BE
WILLING TO GO TO 5 FT. BUT BUT
IF IT BUT THE BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE I AGREE WITH COLLEAGUES
IS JUST NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. SO
THAT, UM SO BUT WE VOTE IF WE'RE
ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT AND MAKE
IT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, WE
WILL WE BE WANTING TO GO TO
FIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THEIR
ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS BEING
EVOLVING, AND I KNOW THAT
THERE'S MORE THAN ONE GROUP THAT
LOOKS AT THIS. YOU KNOW, I HAVE
NASA JPL IN MY DISTRICT THEY'VE
DONE I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF
NAPPING SO MAYBE THE BEST
AVAILABLE SCIENCE IS A TERM OF
ART AND LESS SQUISHY THAN WE
THINK. YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T
KNOW. AND MAYBE THERE'S SOMEONE
WHO CAN DECIDE GOING FORWARD,
EVEN IF WE SAY BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE AS AGREED TO BY THE
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY OR SOME
GROUP THAT WE THINK IS ABLE TO
SAY YES, THAT'S A GROUP THAT CAN
DO THIS OR THIS IS NOT A GROUP
THAT'S CAPABLE OF DOING THIS. I
MEAN, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING
ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE TO SAY IT HAS TO BE ONLY
ONE GROUP AND ONE GROUP ONLY.
THAT ALSO SEEMS PRETTY
RESTRICTIVE. WE PUT TWO GROUPS
AND IF THERE ARE DON'T CARE IF
THEY'RE IF THEY'RE FIVE, I WOULD
BE FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T HAVE
A PROBLEM WITH THE COMMISSION
BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH
STANDARD IS AS LONG AS IT'S
OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE AND SO
THAT SOMEONE WHO'S BUILDING
HOUSING CAN KNOW AHEAD OF TIME
AS OPPOSED TO A BEING AFTER THE
FACT, SOMEONE JUST SORT OF SAYS
, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE IS THIS
SO THAT THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING
FOR SO THAT SOMEONE CAN KNOW
AHEAD OF TIME. SO WE'RE FLEXIBLE
ON THAT. I UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE
EVEN ADDING LANGUAGE LIKE THAT
OBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE AND
VERIFIABLE. BECAUSE I DO THINK,
THOUGH, THAT YOU KNOW, WE ONLY
HAVE A FEW MORE WEEKS AND I
THINK THE COMFORT OF THE
COMMITTEE OF PASSING IT OUT OF
EVEN THIS COMMITTEE WITH SOME A
LITTLE BIT MORE IN THERE EVEN IF
IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGEABLE
LATER. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
COASTAL COMMISSION BE
COMFORTABLE WITH THE BILL. I
THINK A LOT OF US WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THEM BE COMFORTABLE. THEY
CERTAINLY HAVE COME TO THE TABLE
WITH VERY GOOD OFFERS, AND
THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NO LONGER
STANDING BY THE LET'S EXEMPT
COASTAL ZONE LANGUAGES WAS THAT
WHICH WAS THEIR ORIGINAL
POSITION, AND I FEEL LIKE
THEY'VE THEY'VE BEEN MOVING
QUITE A LOT. SO UM SO I DON'T
FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A GROUP HERE
. THAT'S WANTING TO BE OPPOSED
JUST TO BE OPPOSED. I THINK THAT
THEY'RE RAISING LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS AND OFFERING SOLUTIONS
ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, AND I
AGREE WITH THAT. I'M
APPRECIATIVE THAT THEY CAME
FORWARD WITH THOSE. WE RECEIVED
THEM ON SATURDAY. AND SO WE'VE
NOT HAD IT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME. UM YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT IS
WHAT IT IS. I UNDERSTAND THEY
WERE OPPOSED. I'M NOT
CRITICIZING THEM ON THAT TIMING.
BUT THE REALITY IS NO RECEIVING
SATURDAY. WE SENT OURS BACK. I
BELIEVE YESTERDAY IF I IF I'M
RECALLING CORRECTLY, AND SO IT'S
JUST NOT BEEN A LOT OF TIME, BUT
I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE COMMISSION TO TRYING TO GET
TO A PLACE WHERE THE COMMISSION
IS COMFORTABLE. I UNDERSTAND I'M
MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE AT
LEAST THE 5 FT LANGUAGE FOR
TODAY, EVEN IF THAT GETS, YOU
KNOW, CHANGED. I JUST THINK THAT
THERE WILL BE MORE COMFORTABLE
WITH THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE WILL BE MORE
CONVERSATIONS. AND THEN YOU
KNOW. AH! ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT
WE SPOKE ABOUT WAS LIKE TO SEE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO PUTTING
SOMETHING INTO THE BILL. THAT
MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT
WHATEVER THE UNDERLYING ZONING
PLUS THE LAW ALLOWS IN TERMS OF
THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS WHAT IS
ALLOWABLE THAT THERE'S NOT
STREAMLINING TO WHERE YOU CAN
PUT MORE UNITS ON THEM WITH THE
ZONING PLUS WHATEVER OTHER LAWS
, LIKE DENSITY BONUS WOULD ALLOW
. AND IF YOU'RE AND YOU HAVE
TOLD ME YOU WERE WILLING TO ADD
THAT GOING FORWARD, SO, UM THE
ANSWER IS THAT WILL WORK WITH
YOU ON THAT, UM SB 35 ONLY DOES
NOT CHANGE UNDERLYING ZONING
PERIOD END OF STORY IT HAS NEVER
HAS BEFORE. 23 DOESN'T HOWEVER,
I KNOW YOU'VE RAISED CONCERNS
JUST ABOUT MAKING SOMETHING
CRYSTAL CRYSTAL CLEAR AND WE'RE
WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON
WHATEVER REFINEMENT IT NEEDS TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE HAVE
HAD ABOUT THE BILL. I LOOKED
THROUGH THE LANGUAGE, AND IT'S
NOT CLEAR IN MY MIND WHEN I
LOOKED THROUGH, AND SO I THINK
IT'S VERY EASY TO ADD A LINE
THAT CLARIFIES THAT AND SINCE
IT'S ALREADY THE INTENTION TO
NOT UP ZONE, ANYTHING THROUGH
THE BILL. I THINK IT'S YOU KNOW,
I WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMITMENT
THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
UM, YEAH. JUST TO BE CLEAR. I
THINK THE LANGUAGE DOES ALREADY
DO THAT, BUT I AM HAPPY TO MAKE
EXTRA CLARIFICATION AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT.
WAIT AS AN AMENDMENT TODAY. AS
AN AMENDMENT TODAY BECAUSE I
WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
BE VOTING ON THE NO. NOT HIS
AMENDMENT TODAY, SO WE'VE HAD
SOME CONVERSATIONS, MADAM CHAIR
AND I THINK WE HAVE WE WILL. WE
THINK THE BILL IS ALREADY CLEAR
. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ITS ZONING.
UM HOWEVER, ZONE, RIGHT? NO IT
DOESN'T UP SOON. IT STREAMLINES
WHATEVER THE EXISTING ZONING IS.
THE EXISTING ZONING. IF IT'S
ZONED FOR 10 UNITS, THIS BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE IT FROM 10
UNITS. I'M SORRY WITH SOMETHING
WITH THEIR JOKE OR JUST TO BE
CLEAR. I BELIEVE IT'S SORT OF
THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED BECAUSE I
LOOKED, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU
SENT ME SOMETHING ABOUT DENSITY
BONUS. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE
OTHER LANGUAGE, WHAT IT SEEMS TO
SAY TO ME, WHAT IT LITERALLY
SAYS IS IT NEEDS TO BE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEN IT
NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN TWO UNITS.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE ZONING
HAS TO BE A MULTI FAMILIES
OWNING THAT I SAW HOW IT COULD
HAVE BEEN MISSING IT SOMEWHERE.
BUT I THINK THAT JUST CLARIFYING
THAT, GIVEN THAT THAT'S THE
INTENT. UH YOU KNOW. TROUBLE
YEAH, YEAH, I MEAN, BECAUSE I
THINK YOU KNOW I HAVE AND I WILL
SPEAK LATER ABOUT MY WILDFIRE.
CONCERNS UM AND WHAT I'VE BEEN
TOLD OVER THE WEEKEND WAS OR THE
THIS WON'T OVERRIDE A SINGLE
FAMILY ARE ONE IT THAT ARE NEAR
THE IN THE HIGH FIRE SEVERITY
ZONE. BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE
LANGUAGE. I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT
HAS TO BE MULTI FAMILY. AND I'VE
ALWAYS KNOWN THAT. BUT IF IT IS
A SINGLE IF IT'S ZONED R ONE
THEN CAN IT BE. HI USED FOR MORE
THAN ONE UNIT. CAN IT BE
DEVELOPED? NO I MEAN THERE MIGHT
IF THERE ARE OTHER LAWS, BUT IN
TERMS OF THIS LAW, THE ANSWER IS
NO. AND IT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES,
ZONING STANDARDS, AND SO, UH,
THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE
ZONING IN ANY WAY AGAIN. THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED OTHER
LAWS THAT DO CHANGE. I KNOW THIS
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. UM SO
THE LINE IS THE LINE THAT YOU'RE
POINTING TO SAYS, CONSISTENT
WITH OBJECTIVES OWNING STANDARDS
. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT JUST
MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THAT MEANS
I DON'T. I DON'T THINK THAT
SHOULD BE A DIFFICULT THING.
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT
THAT'S NOT YOUR INTENT. SO WE'RE
JUST ASKING FOR DRAFTING
CLARIFICATION. HAPPY TO DO THAT,
AND WE'RE HAPPY WITH YOU. UM ON.
WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK ON. THAT
CLARIFICATION? YEAH AND JUST TO
BE CLEAR. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT COMING
OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE WE'RE
LOOKING TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT
WE ADDRESS SOME OF THESE
CONCERNS AND TIGHTEN IT UP SO
THAT AS IT GOES FORWARD IT'S YOU
KNOW, IT DOES EVERYTHING THAT WE
WANT WITHOUT ANY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES WHERE PEOPLE ARE
LATER ARE GOING TO COME AND SAY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE VOTED FOR. OR
HOW COULD YOU KNOW THAT? I KNOW
THAT WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU
ENVISION WHAT I ENVISION WHAT
YOUR SPONSORS AND VISION IS THAT
INFILL HOUSING GETS STREAMLINED
THAT COMMUNITIES LIKE THE ONE
THAT I REPRESENTED THAT DID
BLOCK HOUSING, MINISTERIAL E
STOP HOUSING. CAN'T DO THAT ANY
LONGER THAT WHEN THEY HAVE
SOMETHING THAT ZONED FOR
MULTIFAMILY, THEY HAVE TO ALLOW
PEOPLE TO BUILD MULTI FAMILY.
THEY CAN'T JUST KEEP THROWING
ROADBLOCK AFTER ROADBLOCK. SO
THAT THEY ALSO DO THEIR FAIR
SHARE. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO
SEE. YOU KNOW, PART OF THE
INCENTIVE TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE
WE NEED MORE INFO HOUSING TO
STOP PEOPLE FROM BUILDING IN
HIGH WIRE WILDFIRE ZONES AND IN
FRAGILE AREAS. THAT'S THAT'S THE
PROMISE OF THIS BILL THAT WE
WILL GET THE HOUSING THAT WE
NEED IN THE PLACES THAT ARE THE
SAFEST TO BUILD AND THE LEAST
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. SO
THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE
BILL, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK
YOU KNOW THAT'S THAT'S REALLY
THE GREAT PROMISE, AND WE JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S
WHAT IT DOES. RIGHT SINCE WE'RE
ON THIS TOPIC, AND I WILL MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER, IS THERE
SOMEONE FROM REPRESENTING THE
CITIES? THAT HAS AN OPINION ON
THIS, WHETHER THIS DOES CHANGE.
ZONING I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE IS
HERE TO ADDRESS THAT. JUST OKAY?
OKAY. SO NEXT MR SOMETHING.
WE'RE FRIEDMAN YOUR YOU'RE DONE
OR. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M
DONE AND I MAY HAVE TO RUN OUT
TO GO TO OTHER ANOTHER
COMMITTEE. BUT I WILL BE
RETURNING UNDERSTAND? OKAY.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOOVER. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A QUICK
QUESTION BEFORE I MAKE SOME
COMMENTS FOR THE COASTAL
COMMISSION ON I GUESS JUST THE
TIMING OF YOUR OPPOSITION AND
WHY YOU DIDN'T ENGAGE SOONER IN
THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. FOR THAT
QUESTION. THE COASTAL COMMISSION
HAS BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE FOR MULTIPLE
MONTHS ON THIS BILL. WE
INITIALLY OFFERED AS OUR
RESPONSE TO THIS PURSUIT TO FIND
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THE SAME
SENTIMENT THAT I'M SAYING TODAY
, WHICH IS ON SEA LEVEL RISE
THAT JUST DOESN'T EXIST. WE'RE
NOT OBFUSCATING. WE'RE JUST
COUNSELING THAT THAT DOES NOT
EXIST. AND SO THAT IS A FRAUD
EXERCISE. IN RESPONSE TO THOSE
MUSINGS WITH MEETINGS, WHICH
WERE WITH THE AUTHOR'S STAFF. WE
RECEIVED SEVERAL ADDITIONAL.
PROPOSALS WHICH ATTEMPT TO TAKE
THE SAME FRAME AND IN DOING SO
DID NOT RESOLVE THAT UNDERLYING
ISSUE THAT THERE IS NOT AN
OBJECTIVE APPROACH FOR SEA LEVEL
RISE. THAT IS WHY IT TOOK SOME
TIME FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS TO
BECOME SUBSTANTIVE AS IT WAS
RECOGNIZED THE PART OF THE
REASON THAT IT FINALLY DID
BECOME SUBSTANTIVE IS BECAUSE
THE COASTAL COMMISSION MOVED ITS
POSITION TO FIND MORE NUANCED
WAYS FOR THE STREAMLINING
PROCESS TO TAKE PLACE IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, BUT THAT DOES NOT
RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AROUND BEING
ABLE TO FIND AN OBJECTIVE
STANDARD TO SEA LEVEL RISE,
WHICH IS WHY IT HAS CONTINUED IN
DISCUSSION TO THIS POINT. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT, UM, YOU
KNOW, I JUST WANNA THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR TAKING ON THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. UM YOU KNOW, WE
TALK A LOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
IN OUR STATE. AND AS MY
COLLEAGUE FROM LOS ANGELES
MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE HIGHEST
FUNCTIONAL POVERTY RATE IN THE
NATION, THE SECOND HIGHEST. WE
ALSO HAVE THE SECOND HIGHEST
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. WE HAVE THE
SECOND MOST EXPENSIVE STATE IN
THE NATION TO LIVE. UM AND AT
THE END OF THE DAY, I TRULY
DON'T BELIEVE WE'LL FIX THIS
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SUPPLY. AND
MY DISTRICT IS BUILDING. I THINK
THERE'S A LOT OF DISTRICTS IN
OUR STATE THAT ARE BUILDING BUT
WE TRULY NEED AN ALL HANDS ON
DECK APPROACH IN COMMUNITIES
ACROSS CALIFORNIA TO SOLVE OUR
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. I
ALSO STRONGLY BELIEVE AS A
PARENT THAT THIS IS ABOUT OUR
NEXT GENERATION THAT WE HAVE TO
MAKE CALIFORNIA PLACE WHERE OUR
KIDS CAN AFFORD. TO LIVE WHERE
THEIR KIDS CAN AFFORD TO LIVE.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE
THAT A B S B 4 23 HELPS US DO
THAT. AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
OKAY THEN I WILL. YOU KNOW, I
WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, JUST START
BY SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW IF I
DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE GOALS OF
THIS BILL, I WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT
AS MUCH TIME AS I DID WITH YOU
AND OTHERS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE
PAST FEW LAST WEEK, I WOULD SAY
WE MET ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO IN MY
OFFICE TO DISCUSS CONCERNS. UM
ONE OF THEM WAS WILDFIRE, AND
ONE OF THEM WAS RELATED TO THE
COASTAL ZONES. SO IT'S NOT A
SURPRISE RIGHT THAT THESE WERE
ISSUES, SO I THINK I THINK I WAS
VERY CLEAR THAT THOSE WERE MY
CONCERNS, AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND UM YOU
KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE
AGGRESSIVE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TARGETS IN THIS BILL. REGARDLESS
IF THIS BILL GOES THROUGH MY
CONSTITUENTS ARE STILL NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE HOUSING
THAT'S BUILT. THROUGH THIS BILL.
AH, I REPRESENT FAMILIES. THAT
MAKES $30,000 FOR A FAMILY OF
FOUR. RIGHT? I DON'T THINK
ANYTHING ON THE COURT THAT'S
BUILT ON THE COASTAL ZONE OR
WHEREVER IS STILL GOING TO
ADDRESS. UH FAMILY THAT MAKES
SUCH LITTLE UM IN OUR STATE. YOU
KNOW, I'M FROM LOS ANGELES, THE
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY. I REPRESENT
A VERY LOW INCOME DISTRICT. UH
AND IT'S STILL NOT GOING TO UM,
HELP, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT OPENING
THE COASTAL ZONE. THIS IS NOT
FOR MY CONSTITUENTS AT ALL. BUT
I KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS
MORE HOUSING. I DON'T OBJECT TO
THAT. I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE
HEARD THIS BILL. IF THAT WERE
THE CASE, BUT YOU KNOW, TODAY WE
WERE HERE AS THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE TO HEAR
ABOUT THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE
RESOURCES COMMITTEES
JURISDICTION AND THAT INCLUDES
THE COASTAL ZONE. THE WILDFIRE
ISSUES, UM AND OTHERS THAT WERE
RAISED THAT ARE RELATED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. UM YOU
KNOW, YOU'VE PRESENTED
AMENDMENTS AND LIKE I TOLD YOU
ON SATURDAY MORNING. I DON'T
WANT TO WALK INTO THE COMMITTEE.
AND NEGOTIATE FROM THE DIESS
BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE PAPERS
GOING AROUND. WHICH LANGUAGES
WHICH IS THIS IN HERE? OR NOT
SURE. SOMETHING'S CROSSED OUT. I
DON'T KNOW. I HAVE ALL THESE
PAPERS ON HERE. I HAVE EMAILS TO
THAT INCLUDE MORE AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU DIDN'T PRESENT TODAY
THAT I ASSUME THAT WE HAD AGREED
TO. UM AND SO YOU KNOW, IT'S
JUST I FEEL LIKE, UH, THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE TRYING
TO NEGOTIATE HERE. UM I'VE SPENT
A LOT OF TIME WITH YOU. UM AND
YOU KNOW, I COMMEND YOU ON
ESPECIALLY THE LABOR STANDARDS.
I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING
UP ALL LABOR. THAT HAS AGREED TO
THIS IS GREAT FOR US FOR OUR
STATE. I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR FROM
YOU ON SATURDAY MORNING THAT YOU
WERE GOING BACK TO THE LANGUAGE
THAT THE TRADES WANTED. I DON'T
KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT. BUT UM
, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE
COMMITTED TO THAT LANGUAGE, YOU
KNOW? IN THE NEGOTIATION. I FEEL
THAT WE HAVE TO BE HONEST, I
NEVER TRIED TO TRICK AN AUTHOR.
I DON'T I ONLY TALK TO THE
AUTHOR AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
AND I TRIED TO BRING THEM
TOGETHER. I FEEL LIKE I DID THAT
WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION. IT
WAS VERY LATE FRIDAY NIGHT. WE
WERE TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM TO
COME CLOSER TO YOU. AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE DID THAT. BUT
NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THEIR
AMENDMENTS RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S
WHERE WE ARE THERE. I WAS REALLY
TRYING AND I JUST FEEL LIKE
THERE'S SO MANY AMENDMENTS GOING
AROUND ON PIECES OF PAPER. UM,
THAT BECAUSE OF THAT. RIGHT NOW
. I'M NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. AH! WHAT I ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
ME IS ADDRESSING THE WILDFIRE.
UM WHAT I WANT TO DO IS PUT IN
THE STRONGER LANGUAGE THE
AMENDMENT THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE
ANALYSIS AND COMMIT TO CONTINUE
TALKING TO YOU. I TOLD YOU THIS
ALREADY ON SATURDAY. UM THIS IS
NOT I'M NOT SURPRISING THE
AUTHOR. LET'S PUT IN THAT THE
AMENDMENT. UM AND THAT WE COMMIT
TO CONTINUE THESE DISCUSSIONS
JUST LIKE YOU WANT TO, BUT FOR
THIS COMMITTEE, UM, TO BE
BROUGHT IN, I FEEL THE STRONGER
AMENDMENT. UH ALLOWS THERE'S
MORE OF A SENSE OF URGENCY FOR
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TO GET
TOGETHER AND TO MAKE SURE THAT A
DISCUSSION DOES HAPPEN RIGHT
BEFORE THIS BILL IS VOTING ON ON
THE FLOOR. WE HAVE THE WHOLE
SUMMER TO DISCUSS THIS. UM LOTS
OF STAKEHOLDERS. UM AGENCIES
MIGHT. COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WANT TO BE A PART OF
THIS? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO US. UM AND I
DON'T WANT CITIES. I AGREE WITH
YOU. I DON'T WANT CITIES TO
ZONE. THEIR WHOLE CITY AS A HIGH
FIRE SEVERITY ZONE JUST SO THAT
THEY WON'T BUILD AND
EXCLUSIONARY, BUT IN LOS
ANGELES. EVERYONE THINKS LOS
ANGELES IS DANCING. UH JUST
DOWNTOWN L A. YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU
KNOW, THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY IS
SURROUNDED BY MOUNTAINS AND
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL WILDFIRES AND
MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU KNOW, WE
WILL BE DEVELOPING IN A VERY
DANGEROUS AREA AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR ON WHAT PARAMETERS WE WILL
BE PUTTING THEIR AND I FEEL THAT
THIS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A SAY.
IF WE PUT IN THAT AMENDMENT THAT
I HAD PROPOSED, AND THE SAME AS
YOU'RE COMMITTING TO THAT WE
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION OVER
THE SUMMER. AH! INTENT LANGUAGE
IS VERY WEAK. YOU KNOW THAT AS A
LEGISLATOR AS A CHAIR, WOULD YOU
DO THAT, RIGHT? PUT IN INTENT
LANGUAGE ON SOMETHING THAT WAS
VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU TO YOUR
DISTRICT. UM TO YOUR COUNTY, UH
, TO LOTS OF PARTS OF THE STATE
, RIGHT? BUT I AM WILLING. I
DON'T WANT IT TO STAY THAT
STRONG. I WANT IT TO BE IN THERE
. SO THAT WHERE, WHERE FOR SURE
AT THE TABLE AND THAT WE WILL,
THERE WILL BE A SENSE OF
URGENCY. LIKE I SAID, TO COME TO
A RESOLUTION. BECAUSE INTENT
LANGUAGE WE SPOKE, YOU KNOW,
INTEND TO SPEAK. INTEND TO
CONSULT YOU CHECK THE BOX IF YOU
TALKED NOT IF THERE WAS A
SOLUTION. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M ASKING YOU FOR TODAY. UM YOU
KNOW, OUT OF RESPECT TO THIS
COMMITTEE AND TO MYSELF AS A
CHAIR. I ABOUT TO GO TO YOUR
COMMITTEE TO PRESENT A BILL
AFTER THIS HEARING. UM AND YOU
KNOW I WOULD BE WILLING TO SIT
DOWN AND WORK WITH YOU IF YOU
WANTED ME TO TAKE AN AMENDMENT
UM AND THAT'S WHAT I'M EXPECTING
, ALSO, BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU
HAVE MY COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE
WORKING. UM AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
ASKING FOR YOU TODAY. IF YOU
TAKE THAT AMENDMENT, I WILL
SUPPORT TODAY. ARE YOU? YES
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND I DO
NOT. WE DID SIT DOWN TWO WEEKS
AGO, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATED
THAT THAT'S POINT. YOU KNOW, WE
TALKED ABOUT THE COASTAL
COMMISSION AND WE TOOK YOUR
DIRECTION AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT, UM SO
I'VE INTRODUCED. I DON'T KNOW,
100 AND 40 BILLS SINCE I'VE BEEN
IN THE LEGISLATURE, INCLUDING
SOME VERY, VERY HARD ONES. UM I
HAVE NEGOTIATED AND ACCEPTED BIG
AMENDMENTS FROM CHAIRS. IN FACT
, TOMORROW AND MR WOODS
COMMITTEE, I'M GOING TO BE
TAKING A RATHER LARGE AMENDMENT
ON A TOTALLY UNRELATED BILL. I
THINK I TAKE SIGNIFICANT
AMENDMENTS FROM CHAIRS AND
NEGOTIATE BIG AMENDMENTS. I ALSO
IT'S BEEN I CALCULATED, I THINK,
4.5 YEARS SINCE I HAVE WALKED
INTO A COMMITTEE WITHOUT HAVING
FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIR.
AS AN AUTHOR. FOR 4.5 YEARS.
IT'S A LOT OF BILLS AND A LOT OF
COMMITTEES BECAUSE USUALLY
MULTIPLE COMMITTEES PER CHAIR. I
HAVE COME INTO COMMITTEE WITH
FIVE SIMPLE WORDS. I THINK IT'S
FIVE. I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? I LIKE TO SAY
THAT AND I WORKED VERY, VERY
HARD TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN AS
CHAIR. I HAVE NEVER TO MY
RECOLLECTION HAD A FIGHT IN MY
COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE WORKED IT
OUT. AND SOMETIMES I CHAIR HAVE
GIVEN ON SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT
I HAVE PUT BILLS OUT OF HOUSING
COMMITTEE THAT I'LL BE HONEST. I
HAVE NOT BEEN IN LOVE WITH, UM
AND SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I
TAKE LIGHTLY TO WALK IN THE
COMMITTEE AND THE STATE.
RESPECTFULLY, MADAM CHAIR. THERE
ARE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THAT I
CANNOT TAKE THE WILDFIRE
AMENDMENT, UM, TO HAVE A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OR
EXCLUSION FROM THE BILL FOR THE
ZONES IS A WOULD BE A MASSIVE
BODY BLOW TO THIS BILL. IT'S NOT
JUST A MINOR AMENDMENT, IT WOULD
BE A MASSIVE BODY BLOW TO THE
BILL. IT IS NOT WHAT THESE MAPS
WERE INTENDED FOR. TO EXCLUDE.
STATE HOUSING LAW. UH AND IT'S
NOT. IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING
THAT I'M ABLE TO ACCEPT. UM I DO
THINK THAT THERE IS A MIDDLE
PATH. UM, I THINK THERE IS A WAY
TO CRAFT THIS TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN
AREAS BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY
THAT WE WOULD ALL AGREE OR
INAPPROPRIATE TO BUILD IN WHILE
NOT MASS EXCLUDING, UM, THESE
ENTIRE ZONES, AND THAT'S WHY I
THINK THE INTENT LANGUAGE IS A
GOOD APPROACH. AND I AND YOU
HAVE MY COMMITMENT THAT I, YOU
KNOW, I VERY MUCH WANT TO BE
ABLE TO WORK WITH YOU AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. THIS IS NOT LIKE WE'RE
OUT OF COMMITTEE AND YOU DON'T
MATTER. I DON'T. THAT'S NOT THE
APPROACH THAT I WOULD EVER TAKE.
UM AND SO THAT I JUST WANT TO
EXPLAIN. WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO,
UH, TO DO THAT. IT'S NOT
DISRESPECT TO YOU. AS CHAIR IT
IS OR TO THE COMMITTEE. IT'S
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
DAMAGING TO THE BILL. IN MY
OPINION, AND THE OPINION OF OUR
COALITION NÓI. I MEAN, I ALSO
YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY
CHAIR. WHAT EXCEPT AN INTENT
LANGUAGE ON SOMETHING THAT'S
VERY IMPORTANT, RIGHT? UM, AND
AT LEAST I WON'T UM AND I HOPE
THAT YOU DO CONTINUE TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE. UH IT'S JUST AN
INTENT TO SPEAK TO CONSULT.
RIGHT UM, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION. THIS IS THE, UH,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE POLICY
COMMITTEE AND THE SECOND HOUSE.
UM, AND WE HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME
LEFT. UH AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE A STRONGER
COMMITMENT. UM AND IF IT'S NOT
IN THERE, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. SO.
I DON'T DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. OKAY MR WARD, OKAY, WE
HAVE EMOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AWARD. SECOND
THING TO BE CLEAR. I APPRECIATE
A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS, AND WE
WANT TO LET THE AUTHOR HAVE TIME
TO CLOSE AS WELL. AND I JUST
WANTED TO RESTATE. YES I'M SORRY
I GOT THE MOTION WAS IS TO
ACCEPT TO MOVE THE BILL FORWARD
, UM WITH THE AUTHOR'S MODIFIED
AMENDMENTS, AS PRESENTED IN
DRAFT FORM HERE TODAY TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65913.4.
UM TO SEE PARAGRAPH C WITH THE
WILDFIRE LANGUAGE, ALTHOUGH IF
IT'S OKAY WITH THE SECOND, ER, I
WOULD ALSO IN ADDITION TO A C
CALIF IRAN AND THE LANGUAGE AND
THE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATE AND TO
ME, THE ASSEMBLY NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE AS A KIND OF
CODIFIED, UM, CONSULTANT TO THIS
CONVERSATION AS IT MOVES FORWARD
OVER THE SUMMER TIME AS WELL. UM
WHICH MEANS NOT GET TO THE YES,
BUT ADDRESSES. I THINK YOU'RE
CONCERNED AS YOU STATED. AND
THEN AS WELL FOR THE AUTHOR
REVERTING THE LABOR LANGUAGE
PUSHES ON THE COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS ON PAGE NINE, BACK TO
THE VERSION PRIOR TO THE JUNE
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS. AND IF I
COULD ASK FOR MADAM SHARE IF I
MAY ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. YES,
I KNOW. GO AHEAD ON THE JUNE
19TH AMENDMENTS HAD A WHOLE
BUNCH OF LABOR AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE NOT AT ISSUE HERE. THE ONLY
ONE THE ONE SENTENCE ABOUT THE
85 FT THAT WAS IN DISPUTE, SO I
WANT TO MAKE SURE NOT. WE DON'T
WANT TO REVERT THE OTHER LABOR
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THAT WILL
COST ONE SENTENCE, WHICH IS
OUTLINED IN PAGE NINE OF THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS. MR WARD,
CAN YOU CLARIFY THE BRINGING
BACK NETWORK USING NATURAL
RESOURCES AS LIKE A CONSULTANT?
CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? SO THE
INTENT LANGUAGE SAYS THE
LEGISLATURE WILL CONSULT HCG CAL
FIRE I WAS PROPOSING TO ADD IN
THE ASSEMBLY NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE AS WELL THAT GIVES I
THINK YOU ARE STRONGER SEAT AT
THE TABLE TO GUIDE THIS
CONVERSATION. THAT'S ALREADY I
MEAN, IT'S A NATURAL RESOURCES
BILL, BUT I MEAN, IT'S YEAH. MR
WARD THAT THAT'S FINE BECAUSE
WE'RE CONSULTING RIGHT NOW
THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND YOU
WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONSULTED. I
DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY THEN I'LL JUST PRESENT
THAT AND RECEIVED THE MOTION AS
ORIGINALLY SECONDED. I DON'T
THINK IT'S NECESSARY, BUT OKAY?
OKAY? OKAY? OKAY, SO. EVERYONE
IS CLEAR ON THE MOTION, THEN,
RIGHT? DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT IT?
JUST IN CASE? NO. OKAY. I'M JUST
I ALREADY KNOW WHAT I'M DOING.
SO UM OKAY. UM, SENATOR, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND AGAIN. I DO WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR OFFICIALLY OVER
THE WEEKEND THERE VARIOUS
CONVERSATIONS AND FOR YOUR, UM.
I THINK I DESCRIBED IN MY
OPENING YOUR SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY.
BETWEEN US AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. I AM COMMITTED TO
RESOLVING THE DISPUTE WITH THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. I DO THINK
THAT MADAM CHAIR, I THINK
BECAUSE OF YOUR EFFORTS. WE ARE
RATHER CLOSE ON THAT, AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE WILL GET THERE
AND I WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE
RECORD. I DO NOT HAVE THE SAME
COASTLINE THAT MR WOOD OR MISS
ADDIS HAVE I ALSO REPRESENTED
COASTAL DISTRICT. IT'S MUCH MORE
DISTRICT IN GENERAL, WE HAVE, UM
WE ALSO HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE
PROBLEMS ON OUR COAST AS WELL.
AND SO I AM SOMEONE WHO, IF YOU
LOOK AT MY VOTING RECORD AND THE
BILLS I'M OFFERING AND ANOTHER
BILL I'M PRESENTING TODAY I'M
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. AND
THE CLIMATE ACTION. I WANT TO
NOTE FOR THE RECORD. PROBLEMS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. THE
ONES WE FOCUSED ON THE MOST SEA
LEVEL RISE AND WILDFIRES. WHY
ARE THEY HAPPENING? BECAUSE
WE'RE PUTTING TOO MUCH CARBON
INTO THE AIR. AND WHEN WE DON'T
BUILD DENSE HOUSING AND OUR
COMMUNITIES IN PLACES LIKE SAN
FRANCISCO AND PLACES LIKE LOS
ANGELES IN PLACES LIKE SANTA
CRUZ, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, WE
ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO DRIVE LONG
DISTANCES AND PUTTING MORE
CARBON IN THE AIR AND MAKING
WILDFIRES WORSE AND MAKING SEA
LEVEL RISE WORSE, AND IT BECOMES
A VICIOUS CYCLE, AND SO WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NEVER IN
THE NAME OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION MAKE CLIMATE. CHANGE
EVEN WORSE. AND THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
HAD A HISTORY OF DOING, SAYING
WE WERE ENVIRONMENTALISTS. SO
WE'RE NOT. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD HOUSING
HERE. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT
POSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD
HOUSING THERE WERE GOING TO MAKE
IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THEIR
BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A GOOD
REASON. THERE'S ALWAYS A REASON
TO SAY THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
WE SHOULDN'T BUILD THERE BECAUSE
IT'S TOO COASTAL. THIS IS A TO
CLOSE TO A WILDFIRE AREA. THIS
IS AN AREA THAT HAS HAD A
HISTORY OF DISPLACEMENT, SO WE
SHOULDN'T BUILD ANYTHING THERE.
WE WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP. IT
BECOMES LIKE 85% OF THE STATE
AND MAKING THAT NUMBER UP, BUT A
LOT OF THE STATE IS OFF LIMITS,
AND THEN WE END UP MAKING THE
PROBLEM WORSE AND MORE PEOPLE
ARE LIVING IN POVERTY AND MORE
PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS AND MORE
WORKING. FAMILIES ARE BEING
COMPLETELY PUSHED NOT JUST OFF
OF THE COAST BUT OUT OF THE
ENTIRE STATE. I WANT TO BE VERY,
VERY CLEAR THIS BILL AYE. I
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH ANY
SUGGESTION THAT THIS BILL IS NOT
ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING 75% OF
THE HOMES STREAMLINED UNDER SP
35 HAVE BEEN BELOW MARKET RATE.
OR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE MAJOR
OF FOUR NONPROFIT, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CONSORTIUMS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. IS SUPPORTING. SP
35, THE INNER CITY LAWCENTER,
WHICH WORKS WITH SOME OF THE
MOST IMPOVERISHED HUMAN BEINGS
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND
SKID ROW, IS A CO SPONSOR. OF SP
35. WHICH WE ACTUALLY CHANGED
THE INCLUSIONARY TO MAKE IT NOT
JUST LOW INCOME BUT VERY LOW
INCOME. THIS IS A BILL THAT WILL
ACCELERATE ALL KINDS OF HOUSING
, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE, HEALTHY
AND INCLUDING MARKET RATE
HOUSING, BECAUSE LET'S BE CLEAR
90% OF LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS
LIVE IN MARKET RATE HOUSING. 90%
99 POINT SOMETHING. PERCENT OF
MIDDLE INCOME CALIFORNIANS LIVE
IN MARKET RATE HOUSING AND IF WE
DON'T BUILD EVERY KIND OF
HOUSING WE ARE PUSHING PEOPLE
OUT. THIS IS THIS BILL ISN'T ALL
OF THE ABOVE APPROACH. I AM
APPRECIATIVE FOR ALL OF THE
SUPPORT, APPRECIATIVE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
SECRETARY, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS RIVERS
NOT VOTING LUZ RIVAS NOT VOTING
FLORA FLORA I ADDIS. THAT IS NOT
VOTING. FRIEDMAN. HOOVER HOOVER
. I'M MATHIS. I I'M MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI NOT VOTING PELLERIN.
SALARY, NOT VOTING WARD. AYE.
AWARD. I WOULD WOULD I EVER AYE.
THAT BILL HAS SIX VOTES WILL
HOLD IT OPEN FOR ABSENT AUTHORS.
YEAH. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S REALLY
GOOD. THANK YOU. YOU GOT
EVERYTHING YOU NEED ON YOU GOT
FOOD. HERE OKAY. UH I'LL START.
I'LL START NEXT. WE HAVE SB
FOUR. BY SENATOR WIENER. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. I GOT A HARD KNUCKLES.
ARE YOU GOING? RIGHT RIGHT,
SENATOR. WE'RE READY WHEN YOU
ARE. OKAY THANK YOU, MR VICE
CHAIR COLLEAGUES FROM HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL FOUR. IN
TERMS OF I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENTS AND
ANALYSIS SIMILAR TO SB 4 TO 3.
WE ARE PROPOSING THE SAME FIRE
AND TENT LANGUAGE IDENTICAL
LANGUAGE THAT WAS PLACED IN THE
4 23, SO THAT'S THE SAME ISSUE.
IN THIS BILL, I ALSO, UM IN
TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
REGARDING INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH
WE RECEIVED ON ON FRIDAY. AND
THE ANALYSIS. UM WE HAVE
INDICATED THE COMMITTEE THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A MIDDLE
GROUND TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
THE MOST NOXIOUS INDUSTRIAL USES
AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES. UM
AND TO GO WITH THE COMMITTEE'S
APPROACH TO THE MOST NOXIOUS
CATEGORIES, AND WITH THE CURRENT
BILL AND PRINT APPROACH FOR THE
OTHER INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES, AND
WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE CHAIR AND HER STAFF ON
CRAFTING THOSE CONTOURS. UM, WE
ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE REMAINING
AMENDMENTS IN THE BILL. UM AH!
SO THIS BILL, COLLEAGUES ALLOWS
FAITH INSTITUTIONS AND NONPROFIT
COLLEGES TO BUILD 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THEIR LAND
, AND THIS BILL IS SIMILAR TO
PREVIOUS BILLS THAT WE'VE
ATTEMPTED TO PASS. AH! CHURCHES
SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, OTHER
PLACES OF WORSHIP HAVE A LONG
HISTORY OF PARTNERING WITH NON
PROFIT DEVELOPERS TO UTILIZE
THEIR SURPLUS LAND TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOMES. HOWEVER IT IS
TOO HARD BECAUSE OF VARIOUS
ZONING AND APPROVAL PROCESSES.
MANY OF THESE FAITH
ORGANIZATIONS VERY MUCH WANT TO
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND
THIS BILL WILL FACILITATE THAT
PROCESS. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE WITH ME TO TESTIFY ARE
ABRAM DIAZ, THE POLICY DIRECTOR
WITH A NONPROFIT HOUSING
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND REGINA BANKS, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE LUTHERAN OFFICE
OF PUBLIC POLICY. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS ABRAM DIAZ.
AND I'M, THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
THE NONPROFIT HOUSING
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. AS WE ALL KNOW, THE
SHORTAGE OF HOUSING HAS CREATED
A DESPERATE CRISIS FOR OUR STATE
AND CALIFORNIA'S FAMILIES AS
LARGE PROPERTY HOLDERS, FAITH
BASED INSTITUTIONS AND PRIVATE
COLLEGES ARE IN A CRITICAL
POSITION TO HELP US MEET THAT
NEED THESE ORGANIZATIONS AS LONG
STANDING COMMUNITY ANCHORS HAVE
COME TO US TO EXPRESS THEIR WISH
TO HELP IN ADDRESSING OUR
HOUSING AND HOMELESS CRISIS. OUR
FAITH PARTNERS SEE THIS AS AN
EXTENSION OF THEIR MISSION AND
MORAL CALLING. THIS BILL
EXCLUSIVELY SUPPORTS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF DEED RESTRICTED
HOUSING THE KIND OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MANY OF US UNIVERSALLY
SUPPORT. THE BILL HAS ENORMOUS
POTENTIAL TO HELP US BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS,
LOW WAGE WORKERS, PEOPLE,
DISABILITIES AND LOW INCOME
FAMILIES. AND I'LL REITERATE
THIS BILL IS TARGETED
EXCLUSIVELY AT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AS WAS NOTED IN A
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. IF
WE MAKE A CONSERVATIVE
PRESUMPTION THAT ONLY A QUARTER
OF OUR FAITH LAND IS
DEVELOPABLE. AT A TYPICAL
DENSITY ABOUT 30 UNITS PER ACRE
. THESE SITES COULD YIELD NEARLY
300,000 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. THIS BILL ENSURES THAT
WE APPLY REASONABLE,
STREAMLINING PRINCIPLES SO THAT
OUR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES CAN
OPEN THEIR DOORS TO CALIFORNIANS
IN NEED. WE BALANCE THIS
APPROACH BY INCLUDING STRONG
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND
REASONABLE DENSITY AND HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS. WE WANT TO RESPECT
THE COMMUNITY AND ENSURE WE'RE
SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT
THE SAME TIME. THE BILL,
SUPPORTED BY HUNDREDS OF GROUPS
FROM ACROSS THE STATE, INCLUDING
LABOR EQUITY BUSINESS GROUPS,
HOUSING GROUPS, VARIOUS FAITH
LEADERS, AND WE ALL COLLECTIVELY
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. I'M HAPPY TO
HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS
NEEDED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
REGINA BANKS, AND I SERVE AS THE
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
FOR THE LUTHERAN OFFICE OF
PUBLIC POLICY. CALIFORNIA WHERE
WE LEAD A COMMUNITY OF 400
CONGREGATIONS OF THE EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA ON
ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY, SUCH AS
HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. I ALSO SERVE AS THE
BOARD CHAIR OF LUTHERAN SOCIAL
SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
, A NONPROFIT SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCY FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON
THE SERVICES THAT PREVENT AND
END HOMELESSNESS. AS A
COMMUNITY. WE ARE PROUD TO
SUPPORT US BEFORE WE ARE PEOPLE
OF FAITH WHO FEEL CALLED BY OUR
GOD TO SERVE OUR NEIGHBORS IN
NEED. FOR SOME TIME
CONGREGATIONS, INDIVIDUALS,
SOCIAL AGENCIES AND SYNOD'S OF
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
IN AMERICA HAVE CALLED ATTENTION
TO THE PLIGHT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE
. MANY MEMBERS HAVE WORKED WITH
OTHER CHURCHES AND GROUPS TO
PROVIDE FOOD, SHELTER AND CARE
AND TO STUDY THE SOCIAL CAUSES
OF HOMELESSNESS AND TO ADVOCATE
FOR POLICIES THAT RESPOND TO THE
HOUSING CRISIS. PEOPLE IN OUR
CONGREGATIONS WHO ARE HOMELESS
AND POTENTIALLY HOMELESS. REMIND
US OF THE URGENCY OF THE
SITUATION AND SOME OF OUR
CONGREGATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
BLESSED WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF
SPACE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO HOUSE
OUR NEIGHBORS. IN FACT, I SPENT
THE WEEKEND WITH THE PASTORS OF
ST ANDREW'S LUTHERAN CHURCH IN
SAN DIEGO PASTOR SARAH SUMNER
EISEN BRAUN BROKE DOWN IN TEARS
AS SHE TOLD ME THE TROUBLE HER
CONGREGATION HAS ENDURED
ATTEMPTING TO HOUSE THE
VULNERABLE IN HER CONGREGATION.
THEY HAVE RESORTED TO HOUSING
FAMILIES IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL
ROOM TO HONOR THEIR CALL TO
SERVE THEIR NEIGHBOR. WE DO THIS
WORK IN LOVE. BUT OFTEN
ENCOUNTER UNNECESSARY LOCAL
REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS. LOCAL
LAWS ARE PARTICULARLY ONEROUS IN
SOME PLACES IN THE STATE LAST
YEAR GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN
CHURCH, CHATSWORTH IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY TRIED TO CONVERT
NEARLY TWO ACRES OF ITS LAND TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WE'RE
TOLD BY COUNTY OFFICIALS THAT IT
WOULD TAKE UPWARDS OF THREE
YEARS FOR CLEARANCE. THEY BECAME
DISCOURAGED AND RATHER THAN WAIT
AND STRUGGLE WITH THEIR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MOVED FORWARD WITH
OTHER MINISTRIES. AND IMMANUEL
LUTHERAN CHURCH IN SAN JOSE JUST
BROKE GROUND ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT ON THEIR CAMPUS. AFTER
2.5 YEARS OF RED TAPE. THAT
PROJECT WILL CREATE NEW,
AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR RESIDENTS
REFERRED DIRECTLY BY THE COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA, AN AREA OF
TREMENDOUS NEED TO WRAP UP YOUR
THOUGHTS, PLEASE. IT WAS A
PROTRACTED AND FRUSTRATING
JOURNEY FOR THAT CONGREGATION
AND COUNCIL. COMMUNITIES OF
FAITH, SUCH AS OURS ARE
LONGSTANDING COMMUNITY ANGERS
AND WISH TO LEAD IN ADDRESSING
OUR HOUSING AND HOMELESS CRISIS.
WE ALL COLLECTIVELY URGE YOUR
STRONG SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL
FOUR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT OF SB FOUR.
FIRST FIVE ROSE, PLEASE. MY
TENNIS UNITED WAY OF GREATER L A
AND SUPPORT BOB NAYLOR FOR
FIELDS THAT IN COMPANY THAT'S
HOWARD AHMANSON JR AND ORANGE
COUNTY PHILANTHROPISTS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CLIFF BERG HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE JPAC, THE JEWISH
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND
SUPPORT ALSO THE JEWISH
FEDERATION LÀ JEWISH FAMILY
SERVICES. SAN DIEGO JEWISH
FAMILY SERVICES. J C R C OF SAN
FRANCISCO. UM, A J C OF L A
THANK YOU APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
SYLVIA SALAS SHAW HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND ON
BEHALF OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO MAYOR LONDON READ ALL
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MARINA WHITE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM AND SUPPORT
DAVID HAS A VETO AARP,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS RAN TO MARTIN HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE AIDS HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION. IT'S HEALTHY HOUSING
FOUNDATION IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS, BILL. THANK YOU. CHARLES
LAFARGE WITH CCS, EPISCOPAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
DAN BRITAIN DRYWALL THAT THERE'S
LOCAL 9109 OUT OF SACRAMENTO
RIGHT HERE, URGING YOUR STRONG
SUPPORT. APRIL. ATKINS LOCAL 22
SAN FRANCISCO CARPENTER'S UNION
STRONG SUPPORT. MATTHEW MILLER,
CARPENTERS LOCAL 68, ILL IN
LIVERMORE, STRONG SUPPORT.
ANTHONY LEVIES. CARPENTER'S
LOCAL 2 TO 36 OUT OF OAKLAND.
STRONG SUPPORT. RYAN NANCE ON
BEHALF OF OVER 1000, CARPENTERS
AND CURRENT INYO AND MONO
COUNTIES. STRONG SUPPORT. MAINLY
MACKNIN, SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN
STATES. REGIONAL COUNCILOR,
CARPENTERS, STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JOSHUA CHRISTIANSEN,
SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN STAGE
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS.
NORTH L. A COUNTY STRONG
SUPPORT, THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON
CAROL MEMBERS, TRACEY STEPHENS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN
STRONG SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR
CHRIS MAKELELE ON BEHALF OF THE
LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND SUPPORT MATT
CREMINS, CALIFORNIA ABOUT A
CONFERENCE OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
CHRIS AND I WERE THE OPERATING
ENGINEERS. LOCAL THREE STRONG
SUPPORT. RACHEL MUELLER WITH THE
VITAMIN GROUP S E I U IN
SUPPORT. NEIGHBORS LOCAL TO 61
DEAR HERNANDEZ, HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. MATTHEW MANDY WITH
INNER CITY LAWCENTER, SKID ROW'S
PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER
AND STRONG SUPPORT AND ALSO IN
STRONG SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
OUR FUTURE LEAD COALITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, VICTOR DILATORY WITH
LIANA LOCAL TO 61 IN SAN
FRANCISCO. STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. OLEGARIO GUZMAN,
LIONEL LOCAL THREE OR FOUR
STRONG SUPPORT. REVEREND PENNY
NIXON HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
OF SAN MATEO PENINSULA,
INTERFAITH SOLIDARITY COHORT AND
STRONG SUPPORT, ALONG WITH
SEVERAL CONGREGATIONS WHO WANT
TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HMM. OMAR COBIAN ON BEHALF OF
OVER 10,000 CARPENTERS FROM THE
INLAND EMPIRE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
SAVANNAH JORGENSEN LUTHERAN
SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
JAN WARREN MULTIFAITH ACTION
COALITION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HAPPY TO SUPPORT. I AM TERRENCE
SANDAL YAK WITH FIRM FOUNDATION,
COMMUNITY, HOUSING AND SPORT.
FRANCISCO KNOWN AS LA UNA
LABORERS THREE OR FOUR ALAMEDA
COUNTY, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOHN
HANNAH WITH THE SOUTHWEST
MOUNTAIN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL
OF CARPENTERS AND A 55 YEAR
MEMBER IMPRESSION. ER AT HOLY
FAMILY CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORANGE
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, LOUIS BROWN ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL
OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES.
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. SHALL
MCGARY CARPENTERS, LOCAL 22 IN
SAN FRANCISCO AND STRONG
SUPPORT. MY NAME IS CARLOS WARNS
OF PHIL REPRESENTATIVE IN NORTH
BAY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
AFTERNOON ED EVANS, CARPENTERS,
LOCAL TO 17, SAN MATEO COUNTY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. SCOTT LITTLE
HAIL, RICHMOND'S RESIDENT AND
MEMBER OF LOCAL 152 CARPENTERS
UNION, REPRESENTING CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY AND
SEVERAL CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA
FOOTHILLS, COUNTIES AND STRONG
SUPPORT. HÌ SOUTHWEST MAN STATES
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
LEADER CALIFORNIA LOCAL SAN
ANTONIO WON STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
DANIEL GREG INDUSTRIAL CARBONS
LOCAL 20 TO 36 IN OAKLAND FULL
SUPPORT. RICHARD BURNS,
SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN STATE
CARPENTERS, UH, LOCAL 213. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. 100% MEGAN
SOME WAY, UM, REPRESENTING
SACRAMENTO AREA CONGREGATIONS
TOGETHER IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. LOPEZ LOCAL 9109,
SACRAMENTO AND SUPPORT. MELANIE
MURILLO'S ON BEHALF OF THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT. NORTHERN ASPIRIN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WITH THE SUPPORT OF AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. COREY SMITH
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION AND SUPPORT TODD DAVID
ON BEHALF OF ABUNDANCE, SAN
FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT. COR
KRINGS ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA.
UM BE SILICON VALLEY ACTION FUND
AND ALL HOME. IN SUPPORT. LUIS
MONTI ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AND SUPPORT THANKS HOLLY
FOR ME TODAY HIS YOUTH WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF HABITAT FORMALITY,
CALIFORNIA SPUR AS WELL AS CIVIC
WILL AND SUPPORT HELLO AGAIN.
RON ROULETTE. CARPENTER'S UNION.
WE HAVE AGAIN. 200 FOLKS OUT
THERE WOULD LOVE TO COME AND ME,
TOO. BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE
COMMITTEE, UH, WE'RE JUST GOING
TO SAY THAT'S ENOUGH AND WE HOPE
WE GET YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR DOING
THAT. UM NEXT, DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SHAUNA
PREWITT. I'M WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
OR SAY HOT SAHARA RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSES S BEFORE UNLESS IT IS
AMENDED TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE SAFEGUARDS AND EQUAL
PUBLIC PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.
THIS BILL WOULD EXPAND CURRENT
LAW TO STREAMLINE THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ON RELIGIOUS AND NON
PROFIT UNIVERSITY LAND WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT PROTECTIONS OR TO
SAFEGUARD PUBLIC HEALTH AND
DISPLACEMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR
RESIDENTS IN DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. AND WE APPRECIATE
OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFERS AND THE BILL
SPONSORS TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS AND WE REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
AMENDMENTS AND STRONGLY
RECOMMEND THAT THEY BE INCLUDED
IN THE BILL. SB FOUR, AND ITS
CURRENT FORM DOES NOT ENSURE
THAT SUFFICIENT SEPARATION
BETWEEN HOUSING PROJECTS. AND
POTENTIALLY POLLUTING USES LIKE
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES, OIL AND
GAS AND FREEWAYS. WHICH CAN LEAD
TO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS SUCH
AS RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS AND
CANCER. THEREFORE WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE AN S BEFORE A SUFFICIENT
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FROM FREEWAYS A
SUFFICIENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT
OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FROM
INDUSTRIAL USE AND FROM OIL AND
GAS FACILITIES. WE SUPPORT THE
BILLS ANALYSIS AMENDMENTS, WHICH
WE BELIEVE STRENGTHEN S BEFORE
WE URGE THE SENATOR. AND THE
SPONSORS TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD PROTECT CURRENT AND
FUTURE RESIDENTS. HEALTH THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. YES, MANAGER DAVID
JONES IN HALF THE CITY OF SAN
MARCOS IN OPPOSITION. ETHAN
NEGRO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALO VERDE IN RESPECT OF
OPPOSITION. GOOD EVENING, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
PAUL GUNS, ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY
HALF OF THE CITY'S AT 1000 OAKS,
YOUR GROUP OF VALLEY SANTA
CORITA IN CHINO IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. IS HE SWINDLER ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY. WESTERN CENTER ON
LAND POVERTY. WE HAVE A
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION AND
APPRECIATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE'S
WORK ON AMENDMENTS AND WOULD
SUPPORT THE BILL WITH THE
AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. TIFFANY
ANG ON THE BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTIN
ACCOUNTABILITY OR LINEUP,
COMMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUST ALLIANCE.
THANK YOU. UH GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN. BRING OUT THERE WITH
THEIR AND COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
HEALTH AND JUSTICE, AND WE
CERTAINLY ALIGN OURSELVES TO SAY
HI. THANK YOU. ALEX LOPEZ ON
BEHALF OF HIS BONANZA, COMMUNITY
HOUSING AND WE SUPPORT. UM SAY
HAS COMMENT. THANK YOU. JENNIFER
BENNETT OF COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND WE
SUPPORT SOUTH. ALSO I'M DOING A
ME TOO, FOR STAND L A. UM WHICH
IS THE STOP NEIGHBORHOOD OIL
DRILLING IN LOS ANGELES. THANK
YOU. SHOULDN'T COBALT WITH
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY. LOS ANGELES ALSO
ON BEHALF OF STAND TOGETHER
AGAINST NEIGHBORHOOD DRILLING L
A AND REDEEMER COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIP IN OPPOSITION AND
ALIGNED WITH SEAHAWKS. S¼ HAS
COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS VIOLET SOTO AND I AM
FROM CENTER FOR POVERTY RAISING
ENVIRONMENT AND I'M AN ALLIANCE,
AN ALLIANCE WITH SAY. HOW'S
COMMENT? THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL
BRING IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PER. UM THANK
YOU, SENATOR WIENER FOR BEING
HERE TODAY I WAS WONDERING IF
YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHETHER THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ARE TAKING
OR THOSE THAT ARE THE ONES THAT
SAY HA HAS REQUESTED AND SECOND
IF YOU CAN RESPOND TO WHETHER OR
NOT YOU IF THEY'RE NOT IN THOSE
AMENDMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S YOU'LL CONSIDER SETBACKS
FROM, UM SOME OF THESE
INDUSTRIAL USES THAT COULD HAVE
IMPACTS ON HEALTH. YES SO, UM,
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THE
COMMITTEE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UM SO AS I INDICATED THE
BEGINNING ON THE ON THE
INDUSTRIAL WE DO YOU MIND
REPEATING WHICH, SINCE I JUST
YOU MISSED YOUR OPENING AND
APOLOGIZE. I WAS TRYING TO ADD
ON BRILLIANT MADAM SHERIFF, SO
I'M SORRY. I JUST HAPPENED TO
MISS IT. PLEASE REPEAT IT. I
JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, BRILLIANT
, WHICH AMENDMENTS SO THEY ALL
AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? I INDICATED
THAT THE WILDFIRE ISSUE IS THE
SAME ISSUE AND THAT WE'RE POSING
THE EXACT SAME. INTENT LANGUAGE.
UM WE ARE INDICATED THAT, UM, ON
THE INDUSTRIAL THAT WE ARE IN
CURRENT AND CONVERSATION, I
BELIEVE WITH YOUR COMMITTEE
BECAUSE, UM, THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT THAT CAME OUT ON
FRIDAY LISTS A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL
USES SOME OF THEM WE THOUGHT
LANGUAGE WAS NOT TIGHT ENOUGH.
BUT WE ALSO HAD INDICATED THAT,
UM SO OUR APPROACH IN THE BILL
HAS TO DO WITH NOT ALLOWING IT
ON AN ADJACENT LOT TO AN
INDUSTRIAL USE. THE COMMITTEE
HAS SUGGESTED 1200 FT. BUT FOR
AND WHAT I MY VIEW IS THAT THERE
ARE FOR SOME OF THE VERY TOXIC
INDUSTRIAL USES LIKE A CHEMICAL
PLANT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE I WOULD
SUPPORT THE 1200 FT BUFFER, BUT
THERE ARE OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES
THAT ARE NOT PARTICULARLY
NOXIOUS. AND SO WE THINK THAT
THE NOT NO ADJACENT LOT IS THE
APPROPRIATE ONE. AND SO IT WOULD
BE TO CATEGORY APPROACH. UM
WHERE? I DON'T THINK WE'VE
RESOLVED THAT WITH THE COMMITTEE
UP, BUT I'M COMMITTED TO
RESOLVING THAT BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THE COMMITTEE'S APPROACH IS
THE CORRECT ONE FOR THE
PARTICULARLY NOXIOUS INDUSTRIAL
USES. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE
SENT YOU. WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD
BACK, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND, UM THAT IF THEN
YOU'RE ACCEPTING. THE LATEST ONE
VIA EMAIL, RIGHT? I JUST WHAT?
WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD BACK AND
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR ON
WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR, BECAUSE
WE MIGHT BE AN ALLIANCE. ALIGNED
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE ON SOME OF THIS
SPECIFIED IN WHICH WHAT. SO WE
JUST RECEIVED THAT NOT THAT LONG
BEFORE THE HEARING, IT WAS
TIGHTENING UP WITH SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE. WE THINK WE'RE
PROBABLY CLOSE, SO I'M I'M
COMMITTING THAT WE WILL TAKE AN
AMENDMENT. BUT I THINK THERE'S
MORE WORK TO DO ON THAT. I'M WE
DO YOU WANT TO RECESS SO THAT.
WERE IF YOU WANT TO RECESS SO WE
CAN, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT DÍAS
AND AFFIRMING THAT UP. I HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH, UH, WITH WITH
DOING THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE IN
AGREEMENT AND ON THAT, BUT WHAT
WHAT? WE'RE NOT. I DON'T THINK
WE'RE THERE YET ABOUT THE OTHERS
. I JUST WANT TO. I MISSED YOUR
OPENING. AND THEN THE WEIRD
INDICATE TO YOU THE FREEWAY ONE
AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE NOT
ACCEPTING. UM AND I WANT TO
EXPLAIN ON THE FREEWAY AND THE
OIL PIECE. UM SO ON THE FREEWAY.
ON THE FREEWAY PIECE. UM, WE ARE
AFTER THE INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM,
SAY, HI AND OTHER GROUPS. WE PUT
IN THE INTO THE BILL THAT IF YOU
ARE WITHIN 500 FT OF A FREEWAY,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL
OF AIR FILTRATION. WE ACTUALLY
TOOK THAT FROM THE LOS ANGELES
AH, BUILDING CODES. SO THIS IS
WHAT ELLA USES FOR HOUSING.
THAT'S WITHIN 500 FT OF A
FREEWAY. SO WE IMPORTED THAT
INTO THIS BILL. WE DON'T THINK
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY THE BILL
CANNOT APPLY WITHIN 500 FT OF A
FREEWAY BECAUSE THAT AND PARTS
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PARTICULAR WIPES OUT HUGE AMOUNT
OF GEOGRAPHY. THERE ARE SOME
WEALTHY AREAS THAT WOULD BE VERY
MUCH KNOCKED OUT OF THE BILL. UM
AND I GUESS IT ALSO RAISES THE
QUESTION THAT IF YOU ARE A
COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED
BY FREEWAYS GOING THROUGH YOUR
COMMUNITY. DOES THAT MEAN YOU
ALSO DON'T GET AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND
MR DIAZ PERHAPS COULD COMMENT ON
THAT MORE ON THE ON THE OIL
ISSUE. UM LISTEN, I'M THE AFTER
MR MURATSUCHI. HE WAS NUMBER
ONE. I WAS NUMBER TWO AND
CARRYING THE OIL SETBACKS, BILL
. WE WILL WORK TOGETHER ON THAT
MISS GONZALEZ AND MS LEMON
FINALLY WERE ABLE TO GET IT
ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. SO
THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE STRONGLY
SUPPORTED THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE
ENABLING DRILLING OIL NEAR
SCHOOLS, HOMES, ETCETERA. BUT
THE QUESTION IS, THIS IS THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION. IF THERE IS
OIL DRILLING HAPPENING IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD DOES THAT MEAN THAT
THAT COMMUNITY WHICH HAS ALREADY
BEEN DEEPLY IMPACTED, OFTEN BY
ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM? BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THE OIL DRILLING
GOES. UM AH. DOES THAT MEAN THEY
ALSO SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THERE IN
THEIR COMMUNITY? AND I, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THE ANSWER IS THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO AND SO TO HAVE
THAT BLANKET EXCLUSION WE THINK
GOES TOO FAR. UM, WE HAVE
INDICATED TO THE CHAIR THAT WE
WOULD BE OPEN TO A SMALLER
CIRCUMFERENCE, BUT THAT
CIRCUMFERENCE WOULD ALSO WIPE
OUT A LOT OF BEVERLY HILLS AND
YOUR BELINDA AND HUNTINGTON'S
BEACH AND A NUMBER OF VERY
WEALTHY CITIES. AND SO WE THINK
IT IS TOO BROAD. BUT MR DIAZ MAY
BE ABLE TO ADD MORE. YEAH, HAPPY
TO ADD ON FOR THE COMMITTEE.
I'LL KNOW. YOU KNOW, WE STRONGLY
BELIEVE OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE
STRIKES A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATION. THE
STANDARD OF AS WAS NOTED BY THE
AUTHOR IS IN SPITE FROM THE CITY
OF ELLA'S BUILDING CODE, VERY
PROGRESSIVE CITY THAT IS HOLDS
VERY HIGH STANDARDS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS VERY
FAMILIAR WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
AROUND FREEWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF
THE WAY IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED.
I'LL SAY ALSO ON OUR END THE AIR
FILTRATION SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE
INCLUDED IS A VERY HIGH STANDARD
ONE THAT A LOT OF BUILDERS OF
OURS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, AND
WE KNOW THAT IT PROTECTS THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS
IN THAT COMMUNITY. I MYSELF LIVE
AT THE CROSSROADS OF I FIVE AND
HIGHWAY 50 RIGHT NEXT TO IT. AND
YOU KNOW OUR COMMUNITY IS A
BUNCH OF APARTMENTS IN TOWN
HOMES, AND WE HAVE THEREFORE
TRACES SYSTEMS, AND THIS IS
MARKET RATE HOUSING. ALTHOUGH
IT'S CONDOS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT
MORE AFFORDABLE FOR YOUNG
COUPLES. AND IT'S A STANDARD. WE
ALSO THINK WORKS VERY WELL IN
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORLD.
AND JUST AS THE LAST POINT, THE
BILL DOES INCLUDE A MANDATE TO
COMPLETE A PHASE ONE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL
AS THE PHASE TWO IF WARRANTED,
AND A REQUIREMENT THAT IF
THERE'S ANYTHING FOUND THERE
THAT IS NOT ABOVE BOARD. YOU
HAVE TO MITIGATE TO STAY AND
FEDERAL STANDARDS AND WE KNOW WE
PRIDE OURSELVES ON OUR STATE
STANDARDS BEING VERY STRONG. AND
IF I COULD? NO JUST AT THE END
AS WELL, I THINK IN PRINCIPLE,
WE'RE GOING TO FALL, OF COURSE,
THE LEAD OF OUR AUTHOR IN THE
COMMITTEE, BUT WE REALLY THINK
THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDERS
ARE VERY RISK AVERSE. IT COSTS A
LOT OF MONEY TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AS WE VERY MUCH KNOW
THESE PENNIES ARE VERY PRECIOUS.
WE WANT TO SHOW WHERE WE BUILD A
SAFE AND HABITABLE AND WILL LAST
FOR THE FULL TENURE OF THAT
BUILDING. SO WE WILL ENSURE THAT
EVERYTHING IS SAFE AND ABOVE
BOARD OF OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR
PROJECT MANAGERS AND WE TAKE
THAT RESPONSIBILITY VERY, VERY
SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU. NEXT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU. SO, SENATOR, I
THOUGHT, FINALLY, A SCOTT WIENER
HOUSING BILL THAT I CAN VOTE
FOR. YOU VOTED FOR ONCE THERE
WAS ONE THAT YOU VOTED FOR IN
THE PAST. REMEMBER? UNTIL UNTIL
. I REALIZED THAT YOUR BILL, YOU
KNOW WHY I SUPPORT THE FOR ALL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. GREAT GREAT
STUFF BUILDING ON, YOU KNOW,
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
EDUCATIONAL, THIS PRIVATE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, UH,
YOU KNOW, LAND. GREAT STAFF. BUT
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LOCAL
PLANNING OR ZONING. SO THEY CAN
BUILD. WHATEVER THEY WANT,
REGARDLESS OF ANY LOCAL ZONING
OR PLANNING. UM, SO THAT THAT'S
. THAT I DON'T THAT THAT
OVERSTATES IT. RESPECTFULLY UH,
SOME REMEMBER WHAT? WHAT THE
BILL DOES THE REASON THAT WHAT
THE BILL DOES IS IT? RES OWNS
THE LAND AND GRANT MINISTERIAL.
UH APPROVAL. YOU CAN'T BUILD
WHATEVER YOU WANT. THERE ARE
SOME SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS.
THE DENSITY. THE DENSITY IS
GOVERNED BY WHAT WE CALL THEM.
MULLEN DENSITIES, WHICH ARE THE
DEFAULT BASELINE DENSITIES IN A
STATE LAW, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT
FROM AN URBAN TO SUBURBAN TO A
RURAL AREA IN TERMS OF THE
NUMBER OF HOMES FOR EAGER THAT
EXISTING STATE LAW AND WE AND
WE, UM UTILIZE THAT. IN ADDITION
, THAT YOU CAN GO UM IT'S
LIMITED IN TERMS OF YOU CAN GO A
LITTLE BIT ABOVE THE LOCAL
HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE. IN ADDITION
, UM YOU, UH THAT IN TERMS OF
THE TYPE OF NON RESIDENTIAL USE
, YOU COULD NOT. IF YOU'RE IN A
LIKE RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOU CAN'T
PUT LIKE A STARBUCKS THERE. BUT
YOU COULD PUT A CHILDCARE CENTER
IF YOU'RE IN A COMMERCIAL OR
MIXED USE AREA. YOU CAN YOU YOU
CAN PUT WHATEVER RETAIL THE
LOCAL CITIES RULES. UM ALLOW. UM
SO A LOT OF THE BILL DOES KEY
OFF OF LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. BUT,
YES, UM, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES
THAT THESE, UM PARTICULARLY
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FACE IS
THAT THEIR LAND IS NOT EVEN
ZONED FOR HOUSING, LET ALONE
MULTI UNIT AND SO THE BILL RES
OWNS IT AND THEN GRANTS
APPROVAL. IF THEY MEET ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS. SO I I'M NOT SURE
I UNDERSTAND. BUT LIKE I MEAN, I
GET IT. YOU KNOW THAT THAT IF
IT'S ZONED FOR A CHURCH THAT
IT'S NOT ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL,
I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF
WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT RIGHT
OFTEN. THAT'S THE CASE. YES. BUT
I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE CHAIRS.
ATTEMPT TO TRY TO IDENTIFY AT
LEAST THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS
BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW IN THE
BASIC COMPACT CONCEPT OF
INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES BEING
NEXT TO EACH OTHER IS TO TRY TO
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM INCOMPATIBLE
LAND USES, AND I'M JUST
CONCERNED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE CHAIRS ATTEMPT THAT SHE IT'S
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FORESEE
AND IDENTIFY EVERY SINGLE, YOU
KNOW, INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE.
THAT. YOUR BILL APPEARS TO BE
PRESENTING AND SO, LIKE, LIKE,
FOR EXAMPLE, I MEAN, I YOU KNOW,
MIKE GOING FORWARD. I MY
BASELINE AND AT THIS POINT IS
GOING TO BE YOU KNOW THAT
SITUATION AND PALACE WORDS WHERE
THOSE HOMES COLLAPSED. YOU KNOW
IF A CHURCH AND PALACE
AUTHORITIES WANTED TO BUILD
HOMES, UH AND ON ON A CHURCH
PROPERTY YOU KNOW THAT WAS AT
RISK OF COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF
LAND EROSION. ME WHAT? WHAT
WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM
HAPPENING? WELL THERE'S THE
BUILDING CODE. FIRST OF ALL, AND
SO I THINK THERE ARE GENERAL
CONSTRAINTS SOMEWHERE. YOU'RE
ALLOWED RIGHT? TO DEVELOP IT. IN
ADDITION, UM THE BILL IS ALSO
LIMITED TO INFILL WITH THAT
DEFINITION HAS TO BE SURROUNDED
ON AT LEAST THREE SIDES WITH
DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU HAVE A
CHURCH IT'S IN, YOU KNOW. VERY
ISOLATED. UH YOU KNOW, RURAL
AREA WHERE IT'S LIKE THAT
CLASSIC CHURCH BY ITSELF,
SURROUNDED BY NO OTHER
DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULDN'T BE
ELIGIBLE. UM AND SO IT ALREADY
BECAUSE OF THE INFILL URBAN IS
URBANIZED AREA REQUIREMENT THAT
LIMITS THE TYPES OF SPACES. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE MORE TO
ADD. YEAH. JUST BRIEFLY ADD FROM
THE BILL. AT LEAST 75% OF THE
PREMIER OF THE SITE HAS TO ENJOY
THE PARCEL. LET'S DEVELOP WITH
URBAN USES, AND THIS IS
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TRANSIT
ORIENTED, SO IT'S OUR EFFORT TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY IN A WAY THAT'S
RESPONSIBLE. AND AS THE AUTHOR
MENTIONED AS WELL, WE DO HAVE
THOSE DENSITIES THAT VARY IF
YOU'RE AN URBAN RURAL SUBURBAN
AREA. AND ALSO THE ONE HEIGHT,
ONE STORY ABOVE THE EXISTING
ALLOWED HEIGHT. THERE TOO. THAT
WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY STRONG
DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS TO ENSURE THAT WE
RESPECTED A LOT OF THE VERY END
TYPES OF COMMUNITIES WE HAVE
ACROSS THE STATE AND WE CAME TO
AGREEMENT AROUND THAT PIECE AS
WELL, VERY MUCH IN THE VEIN OF
TRYING TO RESPECT THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO
TRY TO HOPEFULLY, PARTNER IN AND
DO SOMETHING THAT WILL FIT IN
VERY WELL AND ADDRESS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE
STATE AS A WHOLE. I MEAN, I
APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY
THE OUR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
ATTEMPTING TO BE COMPASSIONATE
TO PROVIDE TO HOUSE THE UNHEARD
HOUSED BET. IT JUST SEEMS TO
MEAN WHY NOT GIVE MORE DEFERENCE
TO LOCAL ZONING AND PLANNING WE
I MEAN, WE WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT
FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS, AND
YOU KNOW, AND THIS REALM IT
HASN'T WORKED. I MEAN, THERE WE
HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM
FROM CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES,
ETCETERA UP AND DOWN THE STATE
WITH THAT THEY GAVE UP. IT'S NOT
WORTH IT FOR THEM. TO EVEN TRY
BECAUSE THE PROCESS FOR REZONING
IS SO CUMBERSOME AND YOU MAY
NEVER EVEN BE ABLE TO GET IT
DONE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE
LOCAL OPPOSITION, SAYING WE
DON'T WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
OUR COMMUNITY. WE DON'T WANT LOW
INCOME PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND THEN AFTER THE REZONING, YOU
HAVE TO GET THE ACTUAL PROJECT
APPROVED, AND THAT COULD BE THE
SAME RESULT. IF YOU HAPPENED TO
GET IT REZONED. AND SO THAT WE
WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS BILL IF
EVERYTHING WERE GOING PEACHY
KEEN, BUT IT'S NOT. AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. I WAS
WONDERING IF, SAY, HA HOW TO ANY
ANY COMMENT ON WELL IN TERMS OF
. LAND USE IS I MEAN, IT'S
CLEAR. I MEAN, WE TRY TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH BILLS LIKE HB
2011. AH BILLS LIKE THE ONE
CURRENTLY ALVAREZ IS DOING A B
14 49. UM AND SO, YEAH, I MEAN,
WE AGREE WE IN AS SAHA'S
OVERALL, OUR WHOLE MEMBERS. WE
AGREE THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN
SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, ALL OF THEM
WHEN WE WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF
SEE THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN. THANK
YOU. UM SO. I LOVE THE GOAL OF
THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE BUILDING
HOUSING AND, UM BUT I WANT TO
ECHO THE CONCERNS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY
WHO REQUESTED THE AMENDMENTS
THAT MAKE SURE THAT THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
GET BUILT ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT
THAT ARE FOUND TO BE SAFE. AND
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
UNSAFE LOCATIONS. IS UNJUST AND
I'M I'M RECALLING THE 10,000
HOMES THAT WERE BUILT AROUND THE
FORMER EXIDE BATTERY RECYCLING
FACILITY, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF LATER 10 YEARS LATER, TRYING
TO CLEAN UP THE LEAD FROM THOSE,
UM FROM THAT PROPERTY, AND IT'S
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHETHER THIS
BILL WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THAT
BUILDING TO OCCUR. I MEAN, I
THINK THAT THE CONCERNS AROUND
FREEWAYS, INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
, OIL AND GAS EXPOSURE ARE
REALLY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. AND
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE. YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE
NOT PLANNING ON TAKING THOSE
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD DO THAT.
NEVER YEAH, I'LL DEFER TO THE
AUTHOR ON THE COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENTS, I'LL SAY IN TERMS OF
WHAT'S IN THE BILL, CURRENTLY,
UM WE WERE VERY PURPOSEFUL IN
ENSURING THAT WE HAD A PHASE ONE
ASSESSMENT INCLUDED IN THE BILL,
AND ACTUALLY, WE WERE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS SOME OF OUR RANDOM
ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS AND WHEN
WE ADDED IN THE PHASE TWO
ASSESSMENT AS WELL TO THE BILL
WHERE NEEDED AND THAT'S TO
ENSURE THAT WE PROPERLY TEST THE
SIDE, ANALYZE IT, AND SURE WE
KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO SO
THAT WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD
THAN THE PROJECTS THAT MAY PROVE
PROBLEMATIC. AND WITHIN THE BILL
ITSELF. WE WROTE THAT IF THERE
IS AN ISSUE ON THE GROUND, YOU
KNOW, PER THESE ASSESSMENTS,
WHICH ARE YOU KNOW, DONE ACROSS
THE BOARD A LOT OF DIFFERENT
TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION YOU HAVE
TO WITHIN THE BILL MITIGATE TO
STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS,
WHICH I'LL SAY FOR US FROM
CALIFORNIA. I'M VERY PROUD THAT
WE HAVE VERY STRONG STATE
STANDARDS AS WELL. SO I THINK
THAT IS A VERY STRONG
PROTECTION. I RECOGNIZE FOLKS
MAY WANT TO GO IN DIFFERENT
DIRECTIONS TO BUT THAT'S A
PROTECTION. WE FEEL VERY STRONG
AND VERY PROUDLY ABOUT AND ALSO
REITERATE, YOU KNOW, FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSES ARE VERY RISK
AVERSE. IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY
TO DO THEN WE'RE TRYING TO WORK
ON THAT ISSUE HERE TODAY AND
WITH OTHER BILLS AS WELL, SO WE
WOULD NOT WASTE OUR OWN TIME OR
ANY OF THE PUBLIC'S DOLLARS ON A
SITE THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO
WORK. WE WANT TO BE VERY SAFE,
VERY PURPOSEFUL. AND SO I'LL
JUST MENTION THAT FOR WHAT'S IN
THE BILL. CURRENTLY THAT WE
THINK IS VERY STRONG. YEAH AND
WE THINK THAT THE THAT CASE BY
CASE APPROACH WITH THE PHASE ONE
AND IF NEEDED, PHASE TWO
ASSESSMENT, AND THE REQUIREMENT
FOR MITIGATION IS A BETTER
APPROACH THAN SAYING IF YOU ARE
350 FT FROM HIGHWAY YOU'RE
YOU'RE SIMPLY NOT ALLOWED TO
BUILD, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNDER UNDER THIS BILL, WE DON'T
THINK THAT THAT'S UH, THE RIGHT
APPROACH RESPECTFULLY. AND THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AIR
FILTRATION SYSTEM. THAT'S IN THE
BILL THAT WE PUT THAT IN FOR
WITH. IF YOU'RE WITHIN 500 FT OF
HIGHWAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS
ENHANCED AIR FILTRATION SYSTEM
AND IF YOU ARE A LOW INCOME
PERSON, WHAT'S IT COST? OR RUN A
SYSTEM LIKE THAT IN YOUR HOME?
WELL THESE TEND TO BE, UM AH,
FOR RENTALS. UM SO IT WOULD BE
ON THE ON THE OPERATOR OF THE
OTHER TOP OF BUILDING. IT'S NOT
LIKE A FILTRATION SYSTEM PER
UNIT. BUT THE BUILDING HAS THE
FILTRATION SYSTEM. AND SO IT'S
BUILDING MAINTENANCE. AND IF I
COULD JUMP INTO SINCE THE BILL
IS RESTRICTED TO 100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEED, RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM IT SHOULD
NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE AFFECT THE
RENTS OF THE TENANTS THEMSELVES,
SINCE IT'S A, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY
FUNDED, DEED RESTRICTED BUILDING
THOSE RATES THAT ARE SET
DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A
VOUCHER OR WHAT KIND OF SETUP
YOU HAVE THEIR INCOME LIMITED SO
ON THE NONPROFIT BUILDERS SIDE.
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU KNOW WE
OPERATE WITHIN AND WE HAVE TO
CALCULATE THE FORMULA. SO WE
WORK WITH THAT TO FIT IT INTO
OUR SYSTEM, AND IT SHOULD. IN
TERMS OF THE TENANTS SIDE
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY WHAT THEY
PAY BECAUSE OF WHAT THE INCOME
THEY HAVE. OKAY.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FLORA. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR SENATE. I JUST
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. AND
IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THE
LAST THREE PLUS HOURS HAVE
TAUGHT US ABOUT HOUSING IS IT'S
COMPLICATED. AND IF WE'RE
LOOKING FOR REASONS NOT TO
BUILD, WE CAN FIND THEM. I THINK
IF WE FOLLOW THAT LOGIC ALL THE
WAY THROUGH. I MEAN, THE
EARTHQUAKE OF 19 06 AND SAN
FRANCISCO. WE'VE NEVER REBUILT
THERE. IF WE FOLLOW THAT LOGIC
BUT WE CAN WORK WITH OUR
CARPETS. WE WORK WITH OUR
TRADES. WE INCREASE OUR BUILDING
CODES. WE FIXED THESE ISSUES SO
WE CAN FIX THIS HOUSING PROBLEM
BECAUSE IF WE CONTINUE TO DO
NOTHING WHAT I KNOW IS THE
DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS
CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME THING
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE HAVE THE
FAITH BASED COMMUNITY NOW
STEPPING UP. READY TO HAVE THEIR
PART OF THEIR PROPERTY TO BUILD
HOUSING ON THAT IS SOMETHING TO
BE COMMENDED, AND IT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE SHOULD TAKE VERY, VERY
SERIOUS, SO I AM INCREDIBLY
PROUD. HAVE YOU BRING THIS
FORWARD? I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
IT. AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF
SOLUTIONS I THINK WE NEED. WE
TALK ABOUT HOUSING ALL THE TIME.
AND WE DO VERY, VERY LITTLE TO
ACTUALLY GET IT DONE. SO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
LOT OF CONCERNS. BUT I'M MORE UM
SOLUTION BASED BECAUSE WE'RE
ALWAYS LOOKING AT THE GLASS, YOU
KNOW. HALF EMPTY. WE'RE GOING TO
BE A PROBLEM. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING US FORWARD AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. SO
. I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
UM AND I'M GONNA PROPOSE
SOMETHING TO YOU RIGHT NOW. IF
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE ONE MORE BILL
TO PRESENT, UM AND WE HAVE 14
BILLS LEFT, AND SO WE'RE GONNA
BE HERE FOR A FEW HOURS. UM AND
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT
WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED THAT YOU
AND I AND YOUR TEAM, WE GO OUT
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN
COME TO SOMETHING TODAY. YOU
KNOW THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CONCERNS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO
ME. UM. I DIDN'T. MY FAMILY DID
NOT HAVE A CHOICE ON WHERE TO
LIVE WHEN THEY CAME TO THE
UNITED STATES IN THE 19 FIFTIES
, WE HAD TO LIVE IN AN AREA
WHERE THERE WAS TOXIC POLLUTION.
WHERE LOTS YOU KNOW HOMES ARE
ACROSS THE STREET FROM THESE
INDUSTRIES THAT ARE POLLUTING.
ALMOST EVERY KID IN MY
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAD ASTHMA.
RIGHT SO I CAN'T DO THIS. UM
KNOWING THAT THIS IS 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT I'M
GOING TO VOTE. TO DO CONTINUE
THIS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM. I
THINK IT'S GREAT. I THINK IT'S
GREAT THAT THE CHURCHES
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE
STEPPING UP AND WANT TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
COMMUNITIES AND I SUPPORT THAT.
UM BUT I DEFINITELY WANT THERE
TO BE SOME PARAMETERS, SO
ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE 100%
AFFORDABLE, SO IT'S OKAY TO PUT
US ANYWHERE. BUT NOT YOU. I
CAN'T DO THAT. BUT I'M WILLING
TO SIT DOWN. IF YOU SAID WE'RE
CLOSE AND THAT YOU'RE CLOSE TO
TAKE AN AMENDMENT. WE'RE HERE
FOR A FEW MORE HOURS, PROBABLY
WITH 14 BILLS. AND I THINK WE
CAN RESOLVE THAT TODAY. I'M
HAPPY TO DO THAT. MADAM CHAIR.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO FOR THIS
BILL, THEN WE WON'T WE WILL.
DELAY THAT THE VOTE. UM AND COME
BACK TO THIS BILL. AND THEN.
THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO YOUR
NEXT BILL. YOU HAVE ONE MORE
RIGHT? OKAY I APOLOGIZE FOR ONE
MORE DAY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
YOU KNOW? I'M FOUR.
OH,
MISTAKES. YOU KNOW, AND I JUST
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I KNOW.
THERE IS A MOTION IN A SECOND,
BUT, UM, WE'VE AGREED, UH, WITH
THE AUTHOR TO CONTINUE. YES I
UNDERSTAND. WE'VE ALL BEEN
WORKING HARD ON ALL OF THESE
BILLS. THERE'S 21 BILLS IN THIS
COMMITTEE. TODAY. FOR 19, RIGHT
. SORRY, 19 SORRY, UH, ALL
WEEKEND AND LOTS OF MEMBERS HAVE
BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS AND WE JUST
WANT MORE TIME. UM, SO NEXT
WE'RE MOVING TO SB 2 53. BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WIENER HIS
FINAL BILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, UM WE'RE NOT DONE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M I'M I'M NOW GONNA
PRESENTING SP 2 53. I'M NOW
GOING TO SAY THE MAGIC WORDS.
I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. UM IN
ADDITION TO THE AUTHOR,
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED
IN THE ANALYSIS, AND WE DO
APPRECIATE THAT VERY STRONG WORK
THAT THE COMMITTEE DID, AND WE
APPRECIATE THOSE AMENDMENTS. UM
SO SP 2 53 IS A CLIMATE
CORPORATE DATA ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT REQUIRE ALL US BASED
COMPANIES WITH OVER A BILLION
DOLLARS IN ANNUAL REVENUE, WHO
DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA TO
REPORT THEIR FULL GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION FOOTPRINT TO THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD.
AFTER THIS DISCLOSURE CAR WILL
BE REQUIRED TO CONTRACT OUT A
REPORT ON THESE ENTITIES IN THE
CONTEXT OF STATE CARBON EMISSION
REDUCTION IN CLIMATE GOALS. AH
WE I THIS IS BILL IS ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY. UM THIS IS, UM
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW LARGE
CORPORATIONS WHO ARE ALREADY
DOING THIS. SOME OF THEM GO
BEYOND WHAT THE BILL REQUIRES.
AND IT'S TIME TO HAVE MORE
CONSISTENCY. HERE WE HAVE A
GROWING COALITION, INCLUDING OF
LARGE CORPORATIONS WHO ARE NOW
SUPPORTING THE BILL, AND I WANT
TO THANK THEM. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY AS
CHRISTINA WYATT, THE DEPUTY
GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF
SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER AT
PERSEPHONE AND MELANIE MURILLO'S
CALIFORNIA STRATEGY SENIOR
PROGRAM MANAGER AT THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE. THANK
YOU. YOU CAN JUST PUT THIS CLOSE
TO GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY? CHAIR
RIVAS AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS CRISTINA WYATT
AND I AM DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
AND CHIEF STATIST INABILITY,
OFFICER PERSEPHONE EAI.
PERSEPHONE IS A SOFTWARE FIRM
THAT ENABLES COMPANIES TO
MEASURE MANAGE AND REPORT THEIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ACCURATELY AND TRANSPARENTLY.
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE
FEASIBILITY OF REPORTING CARBON
EMISSIONS. BEFORE JOINING
PERSEPHONE. I WAS SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR CLIMATE AND ES G AT THE U.
S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION. I CAME TO PERSEPHONE
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE POWER
OF TECHNOLOGY TO RADICALLY
SIMPLIFY CARBON ACCOUNTING.
CARBON ACCOUNTING IS THE PROCESS
OF CALCULATING THE GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
COMPANIES ACTIVITIES, FOR
EXAMPLE. A COMPANY MIGHT HAVE
TRUCKS THAT IT DRIVES AND WHICH
WOULD BE INCLUDED IN ITS SCOPE.
ONE EMISSIONS FACILITIES FOR
WHICH IT PURCHASES, ELECTRICITY
, WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN ITS
SCOPE, TWO EMISSIONS AND
SUPPLIES THAT IT PURCHASES TO
MANUFACTURE ITS PRODUCTS, WHICH
WOULD BE INCLUDED IN ITS SCOPE.
THREE EMISSIONS. TECHNOLOGY
FACILITATES THE MEASUREMENT OF
ALL THREE SCOPES OF EMISSIONS.
THE GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL, THE
EMISSIONS REPORTING STANDARD
USED IN THIS BILL USES EMISSIONS
FACTORS THAT ENABLE DIFFERENT
ACTIVITIES TO BE BOILED DOWN TO
A COMMON CARBON CURRENCY. SB 2
53 IS NOT TIED TO ONE VERSION OF
THE GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL
RATHER AS THE PROTOCOL AND THE
TOOLS COMPANIES USED TO
CALCULATE EMISSIONS CONTINUE TO
MATURE SP 2 53 WILL KEEP PACE
WITH THEM. SOFTWARE AI MACHINE
LEARNING AND PREDICTIVE
ANALYTICS ARE IMPROVING THE
SPEED, EASE AND FIDELITY. WITH
WHICH WE CALCULATE CLIMATE DATA.
KEEP IN MIND THAT CLIMATE
REPORTING IS HAPPENING NOW. THE
VAST MAJORITY OF COMPANIES
ALREADY REPORT CLIMATE DATA AND
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD WILL
REQUIRE CLIMATE REPORTING. THERE
IS NO REGION BETTER SUITED TO
DRIVE THIS IN THE US THINK
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA HAS A
HISTORY OF FORWARD THINKING
CLIMATE INITIATIVES. IT HAS THE
REACH SCOPE AND VENTURE
COMMUNITY THAT WILL PROPEL THIS
MULTI TRILLION DOLLAR GREEN
ENERGY TRANSITION. 30 SECONDS
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH YOU AND HAPPY TO TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS MELANIE MURILLO'S WITH
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE, AND
WE ARE PROUD CO SPONSORS OF SP 2
53. WE'RE A NONPROFIT RACIAL
EQUITY ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS
TOWARDS A FUTURE WHERE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR CAN BUILD
WEALTH LIVING, HEALTHY PLACES
FILLED WITH CLIMATE FILLED WITH
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND ARE
READY TO MEET THE CHALLENGES
POSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. AT
GREENLINING. WE WORK IN
COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS ON THE FRONT
LINES OF CLIMATE CHANGE TO
ENSURE THEIR CONCERNS AND THEIR
DEMANDS ARE HEARD BY ADVOCATES
AND POLICYMAKERS. SP 2 53 IS
IMPORTANT TO US BECAUSE THE
EFFECTS OF GHG EMISSIONS IN OUR
RAPIDLY CHANGING CLIMATE EXCUSE
ME. UM ARE ACUTELY FELT BY LOW
INCOME IN AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. THESE COMMUNITIES
EXPERIENCE CLIMATE RELATED
IMPACTS LIKE FLOODING WILDFIRES
IN EXTREME HEAT WITH LESS
RESOURCES TO PREPARE FOR, AND
WITHSTAND CLIMATE CATASTROPHES
THAT ARE BECOMING MORE FREQUENT.
THERE ARE ALSO FAR MORE LIKELY
TO BE LIVING IN AREAS EXPOSED TO
EXCESSIVE ADMISSIONS, CRIP
TRIBUTE INTO POOR HEALTH
OUTCOMES AND WEALTHIER WHITE
COMMUNITIES, CREATING SOLUTIONS
TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR REQUIRES UNLOCKING THE
POTENTIAL OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
TO DRIVE MEANINGFUL CHANGE AS
WELL AS HOLDING BUSINESSES
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR IMPACT ON
THE CLIMATE. THIS BILL TAKES A
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO REQUIRING
THESE DISCLOSURES, SMALL
BUSINESSES AND FARMS WILL NOT BE
BURDENED WITH REQUIREMENTS TO
CALCULATE AND REPORT ADMISSIONS
. THERE WILL BE PROXIES AND
OTHER MECHANISMS IN PLACE.
ADDITIONALLY COMPANIES WILL HAVE
UNTIL 2027 TO REPORT THIS
CRITICAL SCOPE. THREE EMISSIONS
. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT
BUSINESSES ARE ALREADY
CALCULATING THIS DATA FOR SCOPE
THREE ADMISSIONS AND SHOULD BE
WELL ON THEIR WAY TO MEETING
THESE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE 2027.
SP 2 53 PROVIDES A CRITICAL PATH
FORWARD FOR CORPORATIONS TO
SUPPORT CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE
LEADERSHIP AND IN WILL ENSURE
THAT THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING
INVESTORS, POLICYMAKERS AND
COMMUNITY RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE
THE CRITICAL INFORMATION. ON HOW
OUR STATE'S BIGGEST COMPANIES
ARE CONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE TO
THE CLIMATE CRISIS. THANK YOU
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. NEXT WE'RE READY FOR
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. HELLO MY NAME IS JOHN
PRUITT, REPRESENTING SAY, HA AND
WE ARE IN SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING,
MADAM SHARE. NICK BROKE OFF FROM
SACRAMENTO ADVOCATES ON BEHALF
OF MICROSOFT AND SUPPORT MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS PROUD CO SPONSOR OF THE
BILL, AND I WAS ALSO ASKED TO
PASS ALONG THE SUPPORT OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES, DEFENSE
COUNCIL AND VOICES FOR PROGRESS.
THANKS. JAN WARREN INTERFAITH
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY. RACHEL MUELLER
WITH STU AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
ERIN WOOLY WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT NICOLE
RIVERA WITH THE CLIMATE CENTER
IN SUPPORT. SYLVIA SALISH ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO AND ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. SERIOUS SACKS, MYSTERIOUS,
PROUD CO SPONSOR AND SUPPORTER
OF THIS BILL, ALSO SHARING THE
SUPPORT OF GROUP COLLABORATIVE E
COMMERCE RETAIL COMPANY. CYNTHIA
SHALLOT FOR INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG 80
CHAPTERS UP AND DOWN THE STATE.
CHRISTINA SURRENDER AT THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
AND SUPPORT. AROUND NOTRE PETIT.
I'M A PROFESSOR AT UCLA AND A
CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND I'M IN
SUPPORT. JAMIE MINOR ON BEHALF
OF SALESFORCE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MEGAN SHUMWAY ON BEHALF OF
SACRAMENTO ACT, CLIMATE, JUSTICE
COMMITTEE AND SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING GONZALEZ PATTER WITH ANY
CHICKEN, CERVANTES AND SUPPORT.
SAVANNAH JORGENSEN FOR THE
LUTHERAN OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. KIM DELFINO
, REPRESENTING DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, CALIFORNIA NATIVE
PLANT SOCIETY ON MONO LAKE
COMMITTEE AND SUPPORT. BUTLER
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
SUPPORT. ROBERT COUPLE IN
CALIFORNIA LIFE WORDS, HOW
AMERICANS AND SUPPORT. JANET COX
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA SANTA
CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK AND
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA GREEN
TEAM. THANK YOU. KAREL VAN SAID
1000 GRANDMOTHERS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS AND CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT SAN FERNANDO VALLEY.
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT. UM. LOS
ANGELES AND 3 50 VENTURA COUNTY
CLIMATE HUB. IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. I AM JULIET, GALILEO IN
SPORT WITH 3 50, SACRAMENTO 3 50
BAY AREA ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ALL
IN SUPPORT. I AM JONAH BLUTH ON
BEHALF OF 3, 50 HUMBLE AND I
SUPPORT. I'M SERIOUS LAURIE ON
BEHALF OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA
AND I SUPPORT MARTHA TURNER AND
FOSSIL FREE CALIFORNIA IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. STEPHEN KING
WITH ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. SUZANNE HUME,
CLEANER THROUGH KIDS .ORG.
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU NEXT
ALREADY FOR WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS BRADY, EVEN
ENGLAND HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND A BROADER COALITION OF
AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS REMAIN
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO THIS
BILL, AS IT WILL ACTUALLY NOT
LEAD TO THE REDUCTION. VIDEO
MISSIONS IN MANY WAYS, RUNS
COUNTER TO OUR EXISTING
EMISSIONS INVENTORY COUNTING
PROCESS. OUR OPPOSITION IS BASED
ON A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS FIRST.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE BILL SEEMS
TO BE CENTERED ON TRANSPARENCY
AND TO DRIVE DOWN GHG EMISSIONS,
WHICH INDEED AS WELL INTENDED,
HOWEVER, THE BILL'S REQUIREMENTS
ARE MISALIGNED FROM THE ONLY
GENERATE SIGNIFICANT COSTS WITH
LITTLE OR NOTHING TO SHOW FOR,
IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY OR IN
TERMS OF OUR MISSION REDUCTIONS.
FUNDAMENTALLY. WE THINK THIS IS
A MISAPPLICATION OF WHAT IS
OTHERWISE A USEFUL TOOL THAT IS
USED ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS,
SPECIFICALLY, WE BELIEVE THIS IS
MISSING LINE BECAUSE IT CALLS
FOR THE USE OF W R I G H T
PROTOCOL, WHICH IS DESIGNED AT A
HIGH LEVEL AND USED TO SUPPORT
VOLUNTARY ACTIONS FOR
CORPORATIONS. EVEN WRE ITSELF
NOTES THAT QUOTE, SCOPE
EMISSIONS SCOPE. THREE EMISSIONS
MAY BE CONSIDERED ON WHERE
BOUNDARIES ARE DRAWN. IN QUOTE
BOUNDARIES IN THIS CLAY IN THIS
CASE SIMPLY MEANS WHAT EMISSIONS
ARE AND NOT INCLUDED. THIS IS
SELF SEEMS TO BE COUNTERED THE
INTENT OF THE BILL, WHICH
HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED FOR RIGOROUS
ACCOUNTING TRACKING TRENDS AND
CORPORATE COMPARISONS. ON THE
TOPIC OF CORPORATE COMPARISONS.
THE GHG PROTOCOL PROVIDES FOR
BROAD LATITUDE ON THE
CALCULATION OF SCOPE. THREE
EMISSIONS WITH CORPORATIONS.
THIS IN ITSELF COULD MAKE
COMPARISONS BETWEEN TWO
COMPANIES IN THE SAME INDUSTRY
IRRELEVANT. WI ITSELF NOTES THAT
QUOTE SINCE COMPANIES HAVE
DISCRETION OVER WHICH CATEGORIES
THEY CHOOSE TO REPORT UP. 3 MAY
NOT LEND ITSELF WELL TO
COMPARISONS ACROSS COMPANIES END
QUOTE. THIS OBSERVATION BY WR
ITSELF SEEMS COUNTER TO THE
INTENT OF THE BILL AND IN DIRECT
CONFLICT WITH THE NOTION OF
ADDING TRANSPARENCY WHEN THERE
IS DIRECT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN ANY
INDUSTRY TRENDS WILL BE
IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THE
ABILITY TO SELECT BOUNDARIES AND
WHERE PROXIES ARE APPLIED.
FURTHER THE WR I TECHNICAL
GUIDANCE FOR CALCULATING SCOPE.
THREE EMISSIONS CONTAINS
REFERENCES TO DOZENS OF DATA
SOURCES FOR EMISSIONS FACTORS.
THESE EMISSIONS FACTORS CAN BE
CAN CONTAIN DIFFERENT NUMERICAL
VALUES FOR THE SAME TYPE OF
ACTIVITY, RESULTING IN
SUBSTANTIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN
REPORTING REPORTED DATA AND
AGAIN UNDERSCORES THE LIMITED
VALUE OF USING THIS TOOL TO MAKE
CORPORATE COMPARISONS. CONCERN
THAT IS THIS INFORMATION WILL BE
USED INAPPROPRIATELY, AND THERE
AREN'T SAFEGUARDS WITHIN THIS
BILL TO PREVENT THAT FROM
HAPPENING. THIS NOTION IS
FURTHER ENFORCED BY COMMENTS
FROM THE AUTHOR REFERENCED IN
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, WHICH THEY
STATED WITHOUT THE SAME
REQUIREMENT. QUOTE WITHOUT THE
SAME REQUIREMENTS. CORPORATE
ENTITIES. CALIFORNIA IS LEFT
WITHOUT PROPER INFORMATION, AND
WE'LL NEED TO BE ABLE TO
ACCURATELY REGULATE AND REDUCE
THESE EMISSIONS, END QUOTE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, THESE ARE
MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME
REQUIREMENTS AS OUR EXISTING
EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND GIVEN
THE LIKELIHOOD OF DOUBLE
COUNTING INACCURACIES EMBEDDED
WITHIN THE DATA ITSELF. IT IS
TROUBLING THAT THERE'S ALREADY
EXPRESSED INTENT TO USE THIS
DATA IN A WAY THAT WILL INFORM
FUTURE CLIMATE POLICY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, KNOWING FULL WELL
THAT THIS DATA IS INHERENTLY
ACCURATE, MA'AM, I HAVE MORE,
BUT I'M GONNA, YEAH, IN RESPECT
TO WHERE WE ARE EVERYONE THE
SAME AMOUNT OF TIME YOU KNOW
ABOUT GOOD EVENING MEMBERS.
MADAM CHAIR ROB SPIEGEL, SENIOR
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN
STAUNCH OPPOSITION TO CENTER
BUILT 2 53, AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY AS A PRIORITY FOR
CALIFORNIA'S MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY, AND WE ARE ALSO THE
LEADERS IN DEVELOPING PRODUCTS
TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE. AND
IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
PRACTICES, AND WE CAN PROVIDE
THAT RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THESE EFFORTS
TO APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDERS.
HOWEVER SENATE BILL 2 53 IS A
WIDE RANGING MANDATE FOR ALL
CALIFORNIA COMPANIES AND BEYOND
TO GENERATE PAGES UPON PAGES OF
INFORMATION WHICH WILL ALWAYS
CARRY WITH IT INACCURACIES.
INCOMPLETENESS AND NOT RELEVANT
DATA OR INFORMATION TO OUR MOST
PROMINENT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO
DEPENDING ON THE SECTORS
IMPACTED DATA DOES NOT EXIST. TO
CALCULATE A COMPREHENSIVE AND
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING
OF SCOPE. THREE SO FOR
MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICALLY OR
SCOPE THROUGH CONSIDERATIONS
WILL REQUIRE THIRD PARTY
INFORMATION. FROM THOUSANDS OF
SUPPLIERS AND MILLIONS OF
CUSTOMERS FOR COMMITTEE WIRE
CUSTOMERS WELL BECAUSE
DOWNSTREAM SCOPE THREE EMISSIONS
INCLUDES THE USE OF OUR SOLD
PRODUCTS. AND THE END OF LIFE
TREATMENT OF THOSE SAME PURCHASE
PRODUCTS. SO AS A MATTER OF
EXAMPLE FOR COMMITTEE IMAGINE IF
YOU WILL A SCOPE THREE
CALCULATION FOR A T SHIRT. Tð
ACCURATE TO ACCURATELY CALCULATE
THE SCOPE THREE EMISSIONS FOR
THAT T SHIRT. THE MANUFACTURER
MUST PROVIDE INFORMATION FROM
MULTIPLE PARTIES ABOUT THE
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. OF THE
COTTON FIELDS, PROVIDING THE RAW
MATERIALS. THE ENERGY USED IN
THE FABRIC MILLS IN THE SEWING
FACILITIES THAT ASSEMBLED THE
GARMENT. AND THE FUEL SOURCES OF
THE VEHICLES USED AT EACH STAGE
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
CHOICES TO CUSTOMER MADE
REGARDING HOW TO WASH AND HOW TO
DRY THE ITEM OVER THE PRODUCT'S
LIFECYCLE. SB 2 53 IS NOT
LIMITED. $2 BILLION COMPANIES,
BUT WILL EXTEND TO ALL OTHER
BUSINESSES SMALL, MEDIUM AND
LARGE THAT ARE WITHIN A
MANUFACTURER'S COMPLEX SUPPLY
CHAIN. THE BILL CALLS FOR
REPORTING AT REQUIREMENTS THAT
DRAMATICALLY EXCEED CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING GHD REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. THE REQUIREMENTS
THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO ALREADY
BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE GHD
REPORTING REGULATION IN THE
WORLD AND HAVING BEEN REFINED
FOR OVER A DECADE. AS PROPOSED.
THE BILL WILL YIELD REPORTING
DATA THAT IS HIGHLY VARIABLE,
INCONSISTENT AND INCLUDE
INSIGNIFICANT BUT UNDEFINED
CERTAINTIES PROVIDED IN NUMEROUS
FOR FORMATS, BUT ALSO UNDERMINE
TRANSPARENCY IN THIS BILL. FOR
THESE REASONS, MEMBERS CMT IS AN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. GOOD EVENING,
MADAM CHAIR CHRISTMAS HALEY ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. UM IS THE SWINDLER ON
BEHALF OF LISTED YOU APOLOGIZE?
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET
ASSOCIATION, TECHNET SPECIFIC
MERCHANT SHIPPING ASSOCIATION
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
DAVID GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES, AS
WELL AS THE TRUCK AND ENGINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. RIGHT
CLYDE GUILTY ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS,
CALIFORNIA IN SAN DIEGO CHAPTERS
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
STEPHANIE STRAIGHT ON BEHALF OF
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, BRIAN WHITE ON
BEHALF OF PACIFIC MERCHANT
SHIPPING ASSOCIATION AND TWO
NASCA RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION
PRIMARY SCULPTOR READMISSION
PROVISIONS. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
CARLOS GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FRESH FOOD
ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN
PROFESSIONAL GROWERS AND VARIOUS
OTHER AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. JOANNE BETANCOURT ON
BEHALF OF SIFMA. THE SECURITIES
INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
MADDIE MUNSON ON BEHALF OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA,
POULTRY FEDERATION AND
OPPOSITION. JACKIE ANNA'S ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FUELS
AND CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE AND THE
ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS TRICIA GEHRINGER
WITH AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CHRIS MCLAUGHLIN, CALIFORNIA
COTTON GENDERS AND GROWERS
ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS THE
WESTERN AGRICULTURAL PROBLEM.
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION.
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. SARAH POLO MOVE WITH
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION
AND THEN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. ANA
FERREIRA ON BEHALF OF THE ONE
INSTITUTE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. INDIRA MCDONALD ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. HELLO
AUDRA HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOTEL AND LODGING
ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY COUNCIL AND THEN I'VE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO CONVEY THE
OPPOSITION OF THE CALIFORNIA
SUBMIT MANUFACTURERS. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ZACK, CLEARLY
WITH THE WESTERN STATES
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, WHERE
POST JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF OF
THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. NEXT WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU. THANKS SIR. FOR THIS
BILL. UM FIRST QUESTION. UM, UM,
FOR THE CHAMBER. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR PRIMARY
CONCERN IS THE DOUBLE COUNTING
AND THE YOU KNOW, PERCEPTION.
WELL OR OR THE UM. MS ACCOUNTING
OF THE DIRECT. WELL I GUESS
THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF
EMISSION TRANSPARENCY, BUT IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
OVERALL INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO
TRY TO HAVE SOME KIND OF
GUIDANCE. SO SOME KIND OF DATA
ON THE OVERALL GHT IMPACT. BOTH
DIRECT EMISSIONS AS WELL AS
DOWNSTREAM AND IT'S NOT MEANT TO
BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A PRECISE
MEASUREMENT OF HOW MUCH JCS IS
ADMITTED BY EACH, UM COMPANY AND
THEIR PRODUCTS, SO I DON'T I AM
NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. UM YOU
KNOW IF WE TAKE IT AS DATA TO BE
PRODUCED WITH THE CAVEAT THAT
THERE MAY BE DOUBLE COUNTING OF
GHG EMISSIONS. I DON'T SEE A
PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT COULD YOU
KNOW IT LOOK PERSONALLY, I YOU
KNOW, AND I SHOULD SAY ON BEHALF
OF THE CHAMBER. WE TOTALLY AGREE
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS
THAT ACTUALLY DO THIS ON A
VOLUNTARY BASIS. AND I THINK AS
I TRIED TO CONVEY IN MY
TESTIMONY THAT THEY USE IT AS A
TOOL ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS WHERE
IT WORKS FOR THEM, AND IT'S
APPLIED WHEN YOU ATTEMPT TO
APPLY THIS VIA, YOU KNOW,
MANDATE IT BECOMES MORE
CHALLENGING, PARTICULARLY WHEN
YOU HAVE FOLLOW ON STATEMENTS
SUGGESTING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
GOING TO BE USED. UM AS A TOOL
FOR CLIMATE POLICY WHEN WE HAVE
CLIMATE POLICY AND APPARATUS
THROUGH CLIMATE, WOMEN, AND I
WOULD CHAMBER HAS BEEN LONG
ENGAGED IN CLIMATE POLICY, WHICH
IS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, MR
MURATSUCHI, UM AND IT CONFLICTS
WITH THAT IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY
JUST CREATES NOISE, AND IT
DOESN'T LEAD US IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. ON TOP OF THAT, YOU
KNOW, THERE IS A AH! YOU KNOW,
IT'S INHERENTLY INACCURATE
INFORMATION THAT USE ON A
VOLUNTARY BASIS. AND WE HAVE
LONG ADVOCATED FOR, UM, YOU KNOW
, THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS
FOR CONTINUING THIS AND
VOLUNTARY MANNER, YOU KNOW,
LIKE, WHAT ARE THE CARROTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RATHER THAN
TAKING THE STICK APPROACH, BUT
WE WERE NOT THERE, SO OKAY, BUT
. IF THIS INFORMATION IF THIS
DATA PRODUCED FROM THIS BILL,
UH, WOULD GIVE A BETTER SENSE OF
YOU KNOW WHICH PRODUCTS AND
WHICH SERVICES HAVE THE BIGGEST
CLIMATE IMPACTS AND YOU KNOW,
WITHOUT AH! YOU KNOW ANY CLAIM
THAT THAT THE DATA IS ACTUALLY
SOME PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. LTD. YOU KNOW AT ANY
STAGE AND MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTING AND. PROVIDING AND
USING THE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.
AGAIN I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT. MAYBE WE'RE JUST TALKING.
I THINK I MEAN, I WOULD I WOULD
LOVE TO SPEND SOME TIME. AND YOU
KNOW, UM, HAVE A DEEPER
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WITH
RESPECT TO THE TO THE CHAIR. I
KNOW THAT, UH, SHE WANTS TO NOT
BELABOR THIS ANYMORE AND MOVE ON
, YOU KNOW, AND I CERTAINLY
RESPECT YOU KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW
THE QUESTIONING, BUT I THINK
ULTIMATELY WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS
A AH, YOU KNOW, A TOOL THAT'S
USED. IT'S EFFECTIVELY TRYING TO
USE A BUTTER KNIFE. THAT'S SO ON
A BUTTON. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
BETTER TOOLS TO DO THAT, YOU
KNOW, AND WE HAVE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE THE EXISTING
WE HAVE MANDATORY REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS THROUGH CARB AND
THEN WE ALSO HAVE A GHG
INVENTORY TO SEPARATE TOOLS THAT
HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AS MY
COLLEAGUE FROM CMT A SET HERE
OVER 15 YEARS, 800 PAGES OF
REGULATIONS ARE INCORPORATED
WITHIN YOU KNOW, JUST THAT
FRAMEWORK FOR YOU KNOW, AS PART
OF THE CAP AND TRADE REGIME, UM
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A CORNERSTONE
OF WHAT WE DO HERE IN CALIFORNIA
TO SHOW THAT WE CAN DO CLIMATE
POLICY. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, HAVE
A FOX IN INDUSTRY THAT FOSTERS
AND GROWS. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY,
IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. OKAY?
WITH WITH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO THE OPPOSITION. SENATOR, I
THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
BILL. LIKE YOU SAID. IT'S A
TRANSPARENCY MEASURES TO TRY TO
GIVE ALL OF US A BETTER SENSE OF
WHAT THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF THESE
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ARE. I
WOULD BE HONORED IF YOU WOULD
ADD ME AS A CO AUTHOR TO YOUR
BILL AND I HAVE SECOND THE
MOTION WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
SEE NONE. UM WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES FIRST OF ALL I WANT
TO SAY I'VE HAD THIS UNIQUE
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE ON THIS BILL FOR THREE
YEARS. NOW WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN
AT THIS AND WE ACTUALLY EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE THIS CONTINUING
DISAGREEMENT, WE'VE ACTUALLY
WORK VERY COLLABORATIVELY
TOGETHER AND WHEN THE CHAMBER
HAS COME TO US WITH
IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS, WE'VE
MADE AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL,
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO OPPOSED THE BILL
. SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT OPEN
LINE OF COMMUNICATION, UM,
SHOWING THAT YOU DON'T ALWAYS
HAVE TO AGREE IN ORDER TO HAVE
THAT DIALOGUE, BUT I DO WANT TO
SAY IT'S REALLY INTERESTING. THE
OPPOSITION IS BUT WHEN I READ
THE LETTERS AFTER THREE YEARS,
IT STILL CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME A
LITTLE BIT, UM, THAT THE
OPPOSITION CONTINUES TO SAY.
THAT SMALL SUPPLIERS ARE GOING
TO GET SWEPT IN. THAT IS FALSE.
WE ABSOLUTELY PUT LANGUAGE IN
THAT THAT YOU CAN USE WELL
ESTABLISHED FORMULAS FOR YOUR
SMALL SUPPLIERS. YOU DON'T HAVE
TO GO AROUND THE WORLD AND FIND
EVERY LITTLE MOM AND POP
SUPPLIER. YOU CAN USE FORMULAS
FOR THAT, THAT THEY THEN SAY ON
THE ONE HAND THAT THE BILL IS
TOO PRECISE AND ONEROUS, BUT NOT
PRECISELY ENOUGH, SO IT'S A
LITTLE BIT LIKE A KITCHEN SINK
KIND OF OPPOSITION, AND THE
REALITY IS WE ARE NOT CREATING
ANYTHING NEW HERE. THEY WERE NOT
RECREATING THE WHEEL. THIS IS A
MISSED ABLEST METHODOLOGY THAT
CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN USING FOR
QUITE SOME TIME FOR DECADES NOW
, AND AS THE CHAMBER OF
KNOWLEDGE IS A LOT OF THEM ARE
ALREADY DOING THIS AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
CONSISTENCY FOR THESE LARGE
CORPORATIONS, AND THE TIME IS
NOW FOR CALIFORNIA TO LEAD IN
THIS AREA, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
BELIEVE WE HAVE EMOTION. AND THE
SECOND RIGHT SECOND BY
MURATSUCHI. SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE
PAST AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. RIVAS RIVAS
FLORA FLORA, NO, ADDIS ADDIS I.
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER. MASSES MATHIS
NO MERIT SUKI SUKI, I PELLERIN
AND I WARD WARD. I WOULD WOULD I
SPUR. THE BILL HAS SIX VOTES,
EYES, WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. OKAY
SO WE'RE DONE WITH AUTHOR NUMBER
ONE. THIS IS A SIGN IN ORDER,
BUT I'M GONNA I'M GONNA NAME YOU
KNOW NEXT WE HAVE NEWMAN AFTER
THAT LAYERED DODD MEN, ALLEN. UM
SO IF YOU'RE AN AUTHOR AND
HAVEN'T SIGNED IN, UM PLEASE
COME UP AND SIGN IT. MADAM
CHAIR. I WAS WATCHING THAT ONE
MOVIE. I WANTED TO SEE HOW IT
ENDED. ON A RECENT MY BELIEF ON
THIS MADAM CHAIR ON FILE ITEM
ONE S BEFORE I WOULD LIKE TO
RESCIND MY MOTION UNTIL YOU GUYS
GET BACK FROM YOUR NEGOTIATIONS.
THANK YOU. NEXT. IS IT? BUT
THERE WAS. NEXT SP 4 TO 5 BY
SENATOR NEWMAN. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS LET ME FIRST. I ADMIRE
YOUR STAMINA AND I WILL TRY TO
BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. ALRIGHT
SO MEMBERS I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT SB 4 25, WHICH WOULD
ENHANCE THE CONSUMER REBATE FOR
ZERO EMISSION PICKUP TRUCKS
UNDER THE CLEAN VEHICLE REBATE
PROJECT ALSO NOTICE THE CVR
PROGRAM TO ENSURE HARDWORKING
CALIFORNIANS CAN AND WILL
PARTICIPATE IN OUR TRANSITION TO
A ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE FLEET AS
OF 2019, THERE WERE OVER 4.7
MILLION PICKUP TRUCKS ON
CALIFORNIA'S ROADS. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS BY FAR THE
LARGEST PICKUP TRUCK POPULATION
IN THE COUNTRY. HANDLEY
SURPASSING TEXAS BY OVER HALF A
MILLION VEHICLES AND ACCORDING
TO DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CARDIO ASSOCIATION, AN
ADDITIONAL 250,000 NEW PICKUPS
WERE REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA
LAST YEAR ALONE. SP 4 25 WOULD
UPDATE THE STATE'S EXISTING
MARKET INCENTIVE, THE CLEAN
VEHICLE REMADE PROJECT TO MAKE
ZERO MISSION PICK OBJECTS MORE
AFFORDABLE FOR THE HARDWORKING
MEN AND WOMEN ACROSS CALIFORNIA
, WHOSE LIVELIHOODS DEPEND UPON
THE USE OF A CAPABLE AND
RELIABLE PICKUP TRUCK.
SPECIFICALLY SP 4 25 WOULD
ENHANCE THE CONSUMER REBATE
PROVIDED TO PURCHASERS OF A ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLE PICKUP TRUCK BY
$2500 SUCH THAT MOST LOW AND
MODERN INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WOULD
BE ENTITLED TO A REBATE. OF UP
TO $10,000 PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVES TO DRIVERS OF
CALIFORNIA'S FLEET OF NEARLY 5
MILLION PICKUP TRUCKS REPRESENTS
A SMART, HIGH YIELD APPROACH TO
CARBON IS IN THIS SECTOR WHILE
SUPPORTING THE BROADER GOALS AND
SYSTEMIC HEALTH ARE CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION ECONOMY WITH ME
TO TESTIFY ARE ROSANNA CARPACCIO
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION AND CHRIS
MCLAUGHLIN ON BEHALF OF THE
WESTERN AGRICULTURAL PROCESS
ASSOCIATION. I'M RESPECTFULLY
ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. FIRST WITNESS,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ROSANNA CARPACCIO ELLIOT
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN COALITION IN SUPPORT OF
SB 4 25. AS A SENATOR MENTIONED
THIS BILL IS AIMING OF A
POPULATION OF VEHICLE OWNERS
PICKUP TRUCKS, AS THE ANALYSIS
ALSO STATED THE NUMBER OF PICKUP
TRUCKS THAT ARE SOLD IN THIS
STATE. UM AND THE LACK OF
ELECTRIC VEHICLE PICKUP TRUCKS
THAT EXIST SO BOTH THIS BILL IS
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL, BOTH FUEL
CELL ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS WELL
AS BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLE.
CALLS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE. THROUGH
THE CLEAN VEHICLE REBATE
PROGRAM. WE THINK IT MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE DRIVING
THESE VEHICLES A LOT OF TIMES
NEED TO BE ABLE TO TOW. THEY
NEED TO GO LONG DISTANCES AND
DON'T HAVE THE DOWN TIME TO BE
ABLE TO CHARGE AND THAT'S REALLY
WHERE FUEL CELL ELECTRIC
VEHICLES CAN COME IN AND FILL
THAT THAT MARKET. THE AIR BOARD
HAS SAID. WE'RE GOING TO NEED AT
LEAST 20% OF THE VEHICLES ON THE
ROAD TO BE FUEL CELL ELECTRIC.
TO MEET OUR ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE GOALS. THIS IS JUST ONE
THING THAT THE STATE CAN DO TO
INCENTIVIZE THIS BECAUSE AS WE
KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL OF THIS
PROGRAM IS TO BRING VEHICLES TO
MARKET AND TO HELP WITH
OFFSETTING THE COST OF THE HIGH
COST AS THESE VEHICLES ARE
COMING TO MARKET, AND THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT SP 4 25 WILL DO.
AGAIN IT IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL.
AND FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
TONIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
VICE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CHRIS
MCLAUGHLIN HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COTTON GENDERS
AND GROWERS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL
AS THE WESTERN AGRICULTURAL
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION HERE
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 4 25 BY
SENATOR NEWMAN. UNDER THE
GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER AND
RECENT ACTIONS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD,
SPECIFIC TO THE ADVANCED CLEAN
CARS TO REGULATION AS WELL AS
THE ADVANCED CLEAN FLEETS
REGULATION, CALIFORNIA SET
AGGRESSIVE GOALS TO DE
CARBONIZED THE TRANSPORTATION
SECTOR. THIS INCLUDES THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT IN JUST THREE
YEARS ONE OF EVERY THREE NEW
VEHICLES SOLD IN CALIFORNIA MUST
BE ZERO EMISSION REACHING 100%
BY 2035. SB 4 25 WOULD ENHANCE
MONETARY REBATES FOR ZERO
EMISSION PICKUP TRUCKS VITAL TO
OUR INDUSTRY AND COULD BE AN
ADDED MECHANISM TO ENCOURAGE THE
EXPANSION EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE
FUEL VEHICLES. DIVERSITY AMONGST
MANUFACTURER TYPE AS WELL AS
FUEL USE BENEFITS. THE CONSUMER
S P 4 25 WOULD MAKE ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES MORE
AFFORDABLE FOR OUR WORKING WOMEN
AND MEN WHO NEED THEM TO FEED
AND CLOTHE NOT ONLY CALIFORNIA
BUT AS WELL AS THE WORLD. THE
AGAIN STREET IS COMMITTED TO
COMBATING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND
DOING OUR PART TO HELP ACHIEVE A
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. WE REQUEST
THE COMMITTEE SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 4 25 NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. JOHN
MARTIN ON BEHALF THE ALLIANCE
FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. AUDRA HARTMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION,
COALITION. AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 4 25. YOU WANT AN
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU. JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION. CALIFORNIA 3
50, SACRAMENTO AND THE CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT SILICON VALLEY
CHAPTER IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 4 25. SEEN AND
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS GIVE MR WARDEN
THANK YOU, UM, WANNA THANK THE
AUTHOR AGAIN FOR WORKING IN THE
SPACE AND WE HAD TIME TO TALK
ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND MY OPINION
HASN'T MOVED ON THAT.
ESSENTIALLY I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO BE
ABLE TO INCENTIVIZE AND
PARTICULARLY AS WE'RE GOING TO
THIS BIGGER CLASS. UM IT'S JUST
A LITTLE BIT OF A BRIDGE TOO FAR
FOR ME TO KNOW THAT WE ARE X.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THAT WE HAVE
AN EXISTING C B R B PROGRAM IF
THIS WAS GROWING THAT PIE TO BE
ABLE TO ENCOMPASS MORE VEHICLES
AT GREATER RATES. THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT I COULD SUPPORT,
BUT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, USING AN
EXISTING SORT OF LIMITED
STRUCTURE, AND THEN OF THAT,
CARVING OUT A CLASS OF BIGGER
VEHICLES, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE
HOWEVER, HAVE A MARKET PRICE
THAT ARE ALREADY HIGHER AS AS IT
IS, AND THEN OFFERING THOSE AN
EVEN GREATER INCENTIVE IS
SOMETHING THAT IS JUST A LITTLE
COUNTER TO MY GUT OF WHERE I
WANT TO SEE INCENTIVES GO. I
WANT TO INCENTIVIZE MORE. UM UH
LOWER PRICE VEHICLES TO GET THEM
MORE AND REACH FOR MORE
CALIFORNIANS, AND THAT'S JUST
KIND OF WHERE I'M AT SO ON THIS
ON THE SUBSTANCE, BUT I
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
QUESTION, MR MURATSUCHI? THANK
YOU, SENATOR. SO I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS. UM THE ACCORDING TO
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. THE BILL
DEFINES PICKUP TRUCKS. YOU KNOW,
WITH THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.
UM AYE. I DON'T HAVE I. YEARS
AGO, I HAD A SMALL TOYOTA PICKUP
AND I WAS WONDERING, I MEAN,
WHAT A WHAT A SMALL TOYOTA
PICKUP B UH, INCLUDED. I MEAN,
IS IT A FORD F 1? 50 I MEAN, I
THINK IT'S A CLASS OF VEHICLE
AND SHIPS. THAT'S THE UPPER END.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. UM AND I MEAN
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE AS
STUDENTS ENCOURAGE THE ADOPTION
OF EITHER A FUEL CELL VEHICLES
OR ZERO EMISSION PICKUP TRUCKS
FASTER, SO THAT THAT SHARE OF
THE FLEET THAT WE NEED TO
CONVERT. SO IT'S THAT'S THE TOP
END. WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT
EXCLUDING ANY OF THE SMALLER
ONES. THESE ABOUT WAR TRUCKS. SO
IT WOULD INCLUDE THE SMALL
PICKUP TRUCKS. THAT'S CORRECT,
OK. UM. OKAY THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE CNN CENTER. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENTS
GETTING TO HERE. BUT YOU KNOW
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE,
TOO. MR. VASQUEZ POINT IS TO
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE ARE
USE CASES, YOU KNOW, FOR DRIVERS
THAT ARE NOT EASILY DE
CARBONIZED. ESPECIALLY AGAINST
THE VERY AGGRESSIVE, AMBITIOUS
AND WORTHY GOALS OF THE STATE
FOR DECARBONIZATION, OUR FLEET
OF LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES TO MR
GARDENS POINT, THE MOST SORT OF
UNDERSERVED AREA RIGHT NOW ARE
WORKING PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY AG
, AND SO THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE
WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE ADOPTION
OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER. I THINK WE
CAN DO THAT. WELL YOU KNOW,
WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE TO HIT OUR
GOAL, SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
IAGO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WE NEED A SECOND WOMAN AT US.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS REBUS. FLORA
FLORA, I ADDIS, I FRIEDMAN
HOOVER. MATHIS MATHIS, I
MARTUCCI GI PELLERIN. PELLER AND
I WARD WARD NO WOOD. WOULD I
SPUR. THANK YOU. ATHENA, WITH
SIX MOSTLY THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. MOVING ON TO
FILE AT NUMBER 12 SB 5 68.
PLEASE MOVE THE BILL. VERY GOOD.
UH, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS SP
5 68, WHICH WE REQUIRE THAT
PRIOR TO EXPORTING THE WAYS TOO
BROAD, AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY
IN CALIFORNIA MUST DEMONSTRATE
THAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
LOCATE A LICENSED IN ST E WASTE
RECYCLING FACILITY AND THAT THE
WASTE COULD NOT BE MANAGED BY AN
IN STATE COVERED ELECTRONIC
WASTE RECYCLERS GLOBALLY LESS
THAN 20% OF US IS CURRENTLY
PROPERLY RECYCLED, WITH THE
REMAINING 80% ENDING UP EITHER
IN LANDFILLS OR IMPROPERLY
RECYCLED. IN ADDITION, THE
ADVERSE HEALTH AND CLIMATE
IMPACTS OF IMPROPER CYCLING THIS
ALSO RESULTS IN A SIGNIFICANT
LOSS IS SCARCE AND VALUABLE RAW
MATERIALS SUCH AS GOLD, PLATINUM
, COBALT AND OTHER RARE EARTH
ELEMENTS. THE FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS HAVE IDENTIFIED THE
SECURING OF DOMESTIC SUPPLY
CHAINS FOR CRITICAL MINERALS AND
PRECIOUS METALS AS A HIGH
ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY
PRIORITY, INCLUDING THE
RECYCLING AND RE PROCESSING OF
PRECIOUS METALS. IF WE CAN
EFFECTIVELY ENCOURAGE AND
STREAMLINE THE PROCESSING AND
RECYCLING THE WASTE MATERIALS,
OUR STATE HAS A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME A GLOBAL
LEADER IN THE MARKET FOR SAFELY
RECLAIMING THE RARE AND VALUABLE
MINERALS CONTAINED IN E WASTE BY
REQUIRING AN ENTITY IN
CALIFORNIA TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE AN
IN STATE E WASTE RECYCLING
FACILITY PRIOR TO EXPORT SP 5 68
WILL YIELD IMMENSE LONG TERM
ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR THE STATE
, WHILE ALSO REDUCING THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT POTENTIALLY
TOXIC E WASTE MATERIALS WILL
FIND THEIR WAY TO LOCATIONS
ABROAD WITH MUCH WEAKER
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS THAN OUR
OWN WITH ME TO TESTIFY ON
BEHALF. THIS LEGISLATION TODAY
ARE IN A SAINT DENIS, STRATEGIC
CONSULTANT WITH KEMPSON RATHER
AND LIVE BUTLER, A POLICY
ASSOCIATE FOR CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MUCH. TWO MINUTES APIECE,
PLEASE. DO THAT, UM HELLO, CHAIR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME'S
RENEE. SAINT DENIS. I SERVICED
THE STRATEGY ADVISOR TO CAMP
STONE. RATHER, A PRINTED CIRCUIT
BOARD RECYCLER IN CARLSBAD. I'M
HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF SB 5 68. BECAUSE OF THE
GROWING PROBLEM OF E WASTE. I'VE
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS INDUSTRY
FOR OVER 30 YEARS FIRST AT
HEWLETT PACKARD, WHERE I BUILT
THE PLANT. THAT'S IN ROOSEVELT.
I BET MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR
WITH. THANK YOU. AND THEN, UM,
AT APPLE REDOING THEIR WHOLE
PROGRAM. I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE
IMPACT THAT IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF
THE WASTE CAN HAVE ON THE GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT IN THE COMMUNITIES
INVOLVED IN THAT. BY ENCOURAGING
RESPONSIBLE RECYCLING.
CALIFORNIA CAN KEEP GLOBAL
COMMUNITY SAFE. BECOMING A
GLOBAL LEADER IN THE MARKET FOR
SCARCE MINERALS, MANY OF WHICH
WE CAN DRIVE FROM UNWANTED
ELECTRONICS. AND THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE DESTINED FOR LESS
DESIRABLE DISPOSAL. I URGE YOU
TO SUPPORT SB 5 68. THIS CAN
SPUR E WASTE RECYCLING
INNOVATION IN CALIFORNIA
ADVANCED STATE AND FEDERAL
PRIORITIES AND ALSO POSITIONED
CALIFORNIA TO ASSUME A KEY ROLE
IN CREATING A TRULY CIRCULAR
SOLUTION FOR MANUFACTURERS
LOOKING TO SOURCE RECYCLED
MATERIALS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND CONSIDERATION IN
SUPPORT OF THIS. IMPORTANT,
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
DRIVING. GOOD AFTERNOON TURN
MEMBERS LIVE BUTLER WITH
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE, THE
ORIGINAL US PROGRAM, ESTABLISHED
IN 2003 WAS PRIMARILY GEARED
TOWARDS THE COLLECTION OF
COVERED ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
WE'RE NOW AT A 0.20 YEARS LATER
WHERE WE NEED TO SHIFT OUR
ATTENTION TO MEANINGFUL CLOSED
LOOP RECYCLING OF THE MATERIALS
CONTAINED IN THESE DEVICES.
EXISTING LAW REQUIRES ENTITIES
EXPORTING ANYWAYS TO REPORT ON
THE VOLUME AND THE DESTINATION
OF THE WASTE. AS WE 5 68 WILL
REQUIRE THOSE SAME ENTITIES TO
REPORT IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO FIND
A CERTIFIED IN STATE RECYCLER
BEFORE EXPORTING THE US TO
ANOTHER COUNTRY WHERE HAZARDOUS
AND INFORMAL RECYCLING ARE
TYPICALLY USED TO EXTRACT
VALUABLE AND REUSABLE MATERIALS.
PROMOTING IN STATE RECYCLING
WILL HELP SUPPORT REUSE EFFORTS
WHILE REDUCING RELIANCE ON
CARBON INTENSIVE EXTRACTION OF
RAW MATERIALS. WE THINK THE
AUTHOR FOR HIS COMMITMENT TO THE
ISSUE AND RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 5 68. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? OF SB 5 68 NAME AN
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. SUPPORT.
IS THIS WILL LEARN ABOUT SORRY
IS HE STILL LEARN ABOUT HALF THE
NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP, ACTION
COUNSEL AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 5 68. SEEING
NONE. YOU WANT AN OPPOSITION TO
SB 5 68. OPPOSITION. SEEN NONE.
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? NOW WE'RE MOVING,
SENATOR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
SUCH OF THE ADVANTAGES OF GOING
AFTER SENATOR WINTER? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS RIVAS. FLORA
FLORA, I ADDIS, ADDIS, I
FRIEDMAN HOOVER HOOVER. I MATHIS
MATHISEN. MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI
. AYE PELLERIN, HELLER AND I
WARD WARD. I WOULD WOULD I SPUR
I THANK YOU MEMBERS. BILL HAS
NINE VOTES WILL LEAVE IT OPEN,
PERHAPS A MEMBERS. I DO NOT SEE
SENATOR LAIRD. SO, SENATOR DODD.
BEAUTIFUL. READY WHEN YOU ARE,
SIR. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS PRESENTING SP 3 53, ALSO
KNOWN AS THE BOTTLE BILL 2023.
THIS BILL ADDS LARGE 100% FRUIT
FRUIT JUICE CONTAINERS OVER 46
OUNCES AND VEGETABLE JUICE
CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 16 OUNCE
TO THE CRV PROGRAM. ADDITIONALLY
THE BILL ALLOWS CALVARY CYCLE TO
UTILIZE THE THREE MONTH OR 12
MONTH AVERAGE SCRAP VALUE WHEN
DETERMINING THE PROCESSING
PAYMENT, WHICHEVER IS MORE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT MAKE UP MUCH OF
OUR RECYCLING CENTER
INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE ESTIMATE THE BILL
WILL ADD APPROXIMATELY 200
MILLION ADDITIONAL PLASTIC GLASS
AND METAL CONTAINERS TO OUR
RECYCLING SYSTEM. OUR GOAL WITH
THIS BILL IS TO INCREASE
RECYCLING IN CALIFORNIA. THIS
BILL IS SUPPORT FROM BOTTLERS
AND RECYCLERS ACROSS THE STATE
SPEAKING SUPPORTED THE BILL WE
HAVE MARK MURRAY, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
AGAINST WASTE, AND DENNIS ALBION
E WITH THE AMERICAN BEVERAGE
ASSOCIATION. I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF.
ESPECIALLY ELIZABETH MACMILLAN,
WHO WORKED WITH MY TEAM ON THIS
BILL. AND I THINK MADE IT A MUCH
BETTER BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MARK
MURRAY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUP CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
AND SUPPORT OF THE MEASURE. IT
DOES TWO IMPORTANT THINGS. IT
HELPS TO SUPPORT OUR BUYBACK
RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE BY
CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN THE COST
OF RECYCLING AND THE SCRAP VALUE
, GIVING GREATER AUTHORITY TO
CAL RECYCLE TO USE REAL TIME
CHANGES IN SCRAP VALUE TO
INCREASE PAYMENTS TO THE
RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE. WE
KNOW THAT THE INCENTIVES ON
CONTAINERS WORK. THIS CLOSES
LOOPHOLES FOR CONTAINERS THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PROGRAM
. THEY'RE NOW GOING TO BE ADDED.
SO WE KNOW THIS PROGRAM IS
WORKING. WE'RE HELPING RECYCLING
CENTERS IN A MODEST WAY. THERE'S
MORE THAT WE COULD BE DOING TO
SUPPORT THE BUYBACK RECYCLING
INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE
COMMUNITIES IN THIS STATE WHERE
RECYCLING RATES ARE 80% OR
BETTER. WE HAVE OTHER AREAS OF
THE STATE RURAL NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, THE ENTIRE BAY BAY
AREA WHERE RECYCLING CENTERS ARE
CLOSED, WHERE RECYCLING RATES
AREN'T AS HIGH THIS COMMITTEE
HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF
PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THIS
PROGRAM OVER THE YEARS. IT
WOULDN'T BE A HORRIBLE IDEA FOR
THIS COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO
FOCUS ON THAT AND MAYBE LEND A
HAND IN TERMS OF INCREASING
SUPPORT FOR BUYBACK RECYCLING
CENTERS. URGENT I VOTE THANK YOU
SO MUCH. DENNIS ALBION E. ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BEVERAGE
ASSOCIATION, THE PLASTIC
RECYCLING CORPORATION,
CALIFORNIA. MARK DID A GREAT JOB
OUTLINING SOME OF THE POSITIVES.
I THINK ONE OF THINGS WITH THAT
WE REALLY NEED TO DO IS FOCUS ON
AND THIS BILL DOES THIS GETTING
A CLEANER STREAM THROUGH THE
SYSTEM AND HELPING THE BUYBACK
PROGRAM WHERE THE MAJORITY OF
THE THING PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE
THAT OVER 80% OF THE MATERIAL
COMES THROUGH BUYBACK PROGRAMS,
SO WE NEED TO GET THAT SYSTEM.
WORKED THROUGH. UH AGAIN. WE
HAVE SEVERAL ENTITIES THAT HAVE
COMMITTED AND COMPANIES THAT
HAVE COMMITTED 100% OR, UH,
INCREASING THEIR POST CONSUMER
RESIN, AND SO WE NEED THE
BOTTLES BACK TO BE ABLE TO PUT
THEM AND DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
SO WE APPRECIATE THE TIME AND
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? OF SP 3 53. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
GRACIE LOCASCIO KRINGS HERE ON
BEHALF OF ALLEN COMPANY AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
, MARCO PRAYER HERE ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLIC SERVICES. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. JOHN MOFFITT ON
BEHALF OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT. ON A FERREIRA ON BEHALF
OF THE WINE INSTITUTE. WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS
TAKEN ON BEHALF OF ONE LABELED
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST 2024 AND
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. AS
THE SWINDLER ON BEHALF OF STOP
WASTING, NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP,
ACTION COUNSEL AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ERIN WOOLY
WITH LYRICAL CALIFORNIA AND ALSO
ON BEHALF OF NRDC AND SUPPORT.
ELENA PEARY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
CONSERVATION CORES AND RETHINK
WASTE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND IF WE
HAVE ANY SENATORS THAT ARE
WATCHING, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOU TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE
ROOM. WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU
SOON AND WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION
TO SB 3 53. OPPOSITION TO 53 53.
SEE NONE BRING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. THE QUESTION OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEE NONE.
SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YES SENATOR NEWMAN'S BILLS HAS
NOTHING ON MINE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. WE LOVE THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ABSOLUTELY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. RIVAS. FLORA
FLORA, I ADDIS, ADDIS, I
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER
HOOVER. I MATHIS MATHISEN.
MARTUCCI MERIT SOUCI. AYE,
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. I WARD.
WOULD WOULD I EVER I. BUILDS OUT
WITH NINE VOTES WILL LEAVE IT
OPEN FOR HAVE SOME MEMBERS.
THANK YOU MEMBERS AND SENATORS.
WE DEFINITELY NEED SOME AUTHORS.
AND WE WILL TAKE FIRST COME
FIRST SERVE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR SNAPS.
APPRECIATE IT. GAIL AND I BROKE
MEMBERS LANDING. WE HAVE LAID IT
UP, KNOCKING PART OF IT. ALL THE
CREDIT. BIÂU.
LAYER.
SERIOUSLY.
I MEAN,
YEAH.
WE JUST GOT RID OF. SHOW UP AND
NORBERT.
SO WE DID. FRIEDMAN, HOOVER AND
SPUR.
YEAH. YEAH. ALRIGHT COLLEAGUES.
WE HAVE SENATOR BECKER COME ON
UP. PRESENTING SB 48 FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO READY WHEN YOU ARE
SENATOR. THANK YOU. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY
OF OUR LARGEST BUILDINGS. AND
WE'RE LOOKING AT IF WE'RE GOING
TO LOOK AT GREENHOUSE GASSES,
HOLISTICALLY LARGE BUILDINGS IS
A BIG AREA. THERE'S LOTS OF ROOM
FOR IMPROVEMENT. BUILDINGS OVER
50,000 SQUARE FEET. MAKE UP, UH
, ONLY 6% OF OUR COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS, BUT 53% OF TOTAL
SPACE AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR 5% OF
OUR TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASSES. THE
ENERGY BENCHMARKING DATA SHOWS
US THAT FOR LARGE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS BUILT BEFORE 2010 THE
LEAST EFFICIENT 20. COULD CUT
THEIR ENERGY USE IN HALF IF THEY
WERE AS GOOD AS THE TOP 20% OF
OLDER BUILDINGS. THAT MEANS
SAVING HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS PER
YEAR AND ENERGY BILLS FOR
TENANTS IN THOSE BUILDINGS. ONE
OF THE CHALLENGES IS HOW TO
BALANCE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, HOW IT
IMPACTS HOUSING COSTS. AND WE'VE
GOT EXTREMELY HELPFUL INPUT FROM
THE HOUSING ADVOCATES ABOUT
THESE ISSUES, WHICH WE'VE
INCORPORATED THIS BILL. THIS
BILL REQUIRES THE CCD
PRIORITIZING HOUSING ISSUES.
HOUSING ISSUES AS IT DEVELOPS A
STRATEGY AND MAKE SURE THAT
TENANT ADVOCATES ARE GIVEN A
STRONG A VOICE. BECAUSE THE
ISSUES ARE COMPLEX. THIS BILL IS
REALLY A FIRST STEP CALLING FOR
THE CC TO PROPOSE A STRATEGY
ONCE I TRIED TO DEVELOP WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
IT AND VOTE ON IT. BUT IN OTHER
AREAS WHERE WE'RE USUALLY
LEADING THE NATION HERE, WE'RE
REALLY FOLLOWING OTHER CITY
FIRST NEW YORK CITY DID A
BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
UM AND THEN OTHER STATES
COLORADO WASHINGTON STATE.
MARYLAND NOW HAS DONE IT AND
THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO A STEP
FORWARD. UM, WE DO HAVE MY
WINDOWS STILL HERE. THANK YOU
FOR STILL BEING HERE. PAUL
MATTHEW RECENTLY RETIRED FROM
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB
IN AN EXPERT ON BUILDING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. TWO MINUTES PER
WITNESS, PLEASE. SURE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GOOD
EVENING. ALMOST NOW. MY NAME IS
PAUL MATTHEW. I'M A RECENTLY
RETIRED STAFF SCIENTISTS FROM
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL
LABORATORY, WHERE I LET OUR
TECHNICAL WORK ON BUILDING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WORKING
WITH VARIOUS STATES, MARYLAND,
WASHINGTON AND FIVE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ON THEIR PLANS FOR
BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
AND BUILDING DECARBONIZATION. I
WAS ALSO A CO AUTHOR OF THE
ASHLEY GUIDE ON ON BP S. I
SHOULD STATE THAT MY TESTIMONY
IS MY OWN. I DON'T REPRESENT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY YOU SEE OR
LBL? WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO JUST
AMPLIFY SENATOR BECKER'S
COMMENTS WITH WITH THREE QUICK
POINTS FIRST IS THAT I BELIEVE
BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS
BECAUSE THEY ADDRESS EXISTING
BUILDINGS 66% OF THE FLOOR AREA
COMMERCIAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA
WE'LL HAVE IN 2050 EXIST TODAY,
AND THOSE BUILDINGS ARE NOT
BEING RETROFITTED AT AN ADEQUATE
RATE. IN FACT, SOME ESTIMATES
SAY THAT THEY WILL TAKE UP TO 50
YEARS TO RETROFIT EVERY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING. SO BUILDING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE WAY
TOO KIND OF FORCING FUNCTION TO
HELP MOVE THAT FORWARD. THE
SECOND POINT. UH BUILDING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OFFER
FLEXIBILITY TO OWNERS. THEY CAN
MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN
WHATEVER WAY WORKS BEST FOR
THEM. UM AND THIS BILL INCLUDES
GUARDRAILS TO PROTECT TENANTS
AND AVOID INCREASED HOUSING
BURDENS. AND FINALLY, I'LL JUST
SAY THAT THIS IS NOT SOME RISKY
NEW THING. BUILDING PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS ARE ALREADY EMERGING
AS BEST PRACTICE. 12 STATES AND
CITIES IN THE COUNTRY HAVE
ALREADY PASSED BPS ON THE BOOKS
. UM AND SO TO ECHO. SENATOR
BECKER'S, UM, COMMENTS. THIS IS
AN ODD CASE WHERE CALIFORNIA HAS
ACTUALLY BEEN LAGGING. WE'VE
ALWAYS BEEN LEADING ON BUILDING
ENERGY EFFICIENCY WERE ACTUALLY
LAGGING, AND THERE'S A CHANCE TO
KIND OF CATCH UP WITH THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OF SB 48?
NAME AND ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
ELENA FREED, MAKING IT
URBANIZATION, LARA. TESTING OKAY
. ELENA PERRY ON BEHALF OF THE
BUILDING, DECARBONIZATION
COALITION AND SUPPORT. THANKS.
THANK YOU. SO SYLVIA SALISH ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF WEST
HOLLYWOOD AND SUPPORT ERIN
WILLEY ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT NORTHERN
ASPIRIN ON BEHALF OF REWIRING
AMERICA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MEGAN SHUMWAY, REPRESENTING THE
80 CHAPTERS OF INDIVIDUALS,
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
JULIETTE GALILEO WITH SACRAMENTO
3 53 50 BAY AREA ACTION IN
SUPPORT. JONAH BLUES WITH 3 50
HUMBOLDT IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
JANET COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA AND, UM, THE
CALIFORNIA INDIVISIBLE GREEN
TEAM. THANK YOU. CAROL VAN SANT.
1000 GRANDMOTHERS FOR FUTURE
GENERATION. AND ALSO, UM SENATE
CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK AND
THREE FIFTIES AND TURA COUNTY
CLIMATE HUB. THANK YOU ALL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SYRIA LAURIE
ON BEHALF OF FOSSIL FREE,
CALIFORNIA AND INDIVISIBLE,
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT. HI THERE. APOLOGIES
I WAS RUNNING BACK. BUT LARA
DIÆN, STATE DIRECTOR WITH
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA WE'RE
ALSO PROUD TO CO SPONSOR THE
BILL AND WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. BECAUSE ENERGY THE
ENERGY WE SAVE IS THE CLEANEST
ENERGY WE CAN GET. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 48? SEE NONE.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 48?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR VICE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. KAREEM BREEZY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. WE DO
HAVE A RESPECTFUL OPPOSING THIS
AMENDED POSITION IS OUTLINED IN
OUR LETTER. WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST TO NO VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION SP 48. SEEING
NONE BRING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. THE QUESTION OF THE
COMMITTEE, MR ZEBRA. UH SOME, UH
, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE BILL,
BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU CAN
RESPOND TO I SAW THAT THE
REALTORS WERE ASKING THIS SMALL
HOUSING PROVIDERS BE EXEMPT. I
WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT THAT WAS
AND WANTED TO SEE IF YOU HAD HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM. ABOUT
WHAT? THAT MEANT. YEAH FIRST OF
ALL, THEY THEY'RE ALREADY EXEMPT
. I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM I THINK
IT HAS TO BE FIVE. SO BENCHMARK
. IT ONLY APPLIES TO BUILDINGS
WITH 17, PLUS UNITS AND 50,000
SQUARE FEET OVERALL, SO THEY ARE
EXEMPT. I THINK THERE WAS A
CONCERN ABOUT, UH, DOES THIS
PLACE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON
TENANTS? AND THIS WAS AN
AMENDMENT THAT WAS PUT IN AS WE
WENT ALONG, AND THE GOAL IS
REALLY JUST TO TELL THE C C. HEY
CC WHILE YOU'RE DOING BUILDINGS
PLAN PLEASE DON'T DO ANYTHING
THAT ADDS ADDITIONAL BURDENS. UM
TO TENANTS, SO IT'S NOT SUPPOSED
TO BURDEN THAT'S LANDLORDS ANY
ANY ANY AT ALL? IS IT CONSISTENT
WITH THE OTHER BILL THAT THEY
CITED AS SORT OF THE PRECEDENT
IN THEIR LETTER OR NOT? UM I'M
TRYING TO RECALL WHICH ONE OF
THE 14 82 TO BILL. YEAH, I THINK
SO. LET ME SEE IF I CAN. YES SO
THE BILL IS NOT CHANGING ANY OF
THE RULES PUT IN PLACE BY A B 14
82? YEAH YEAH, IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH 14 82 EXCEPTION. THEY'RE
CHANGING THE RULES. JUST
DIRECTNESS CSC TO CONSIDER,
INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS IN A
STRATEGY THAT WOULD PROTECT
TENANTS FROM EVICTION. UM AND,
UH, AND INCREASES IN COSTS, BUT
IT IS YES. SO IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE TRUE BILL. OKAY THANK
YOU. I MEAN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF
THE BILL. I JUST LIKE TO IF
THERE'S WAYS THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY ADDRESS CONCERNS THAT
ARE BEING RAISED AT SOME OF
THESE THINGS WITHOUT HARMING THE
GOALS OF THE BILL, IT WAS LIKE
TO TRY TO DO THAT. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND FROM THE
BEGINNING, WE'VE REALLY WORKED
HARD. ACTUALLY, THIS WE SPENT
THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS PROCESS
ACTUALLY JUST MEETING WITH FOLKS
ON THE HOUSING SIDE, JUST TO
REALLY TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE
CONCERNS. THANK YOU SO MUCH ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? SENATOR WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? APPRECIATE
THE SUPPORT? I THINK OUR WITNESS
SAID IT BEST. THIS IS A TRIED
AND TRUE METHOD OF REDUCING, UM
ENERGY AND LARGE BUILDINGS THAT
GIVES ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY AND
REQUEST. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
AND I VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS RIVAS. FLORA
VOTING, NOT VOTING AT US. I
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER.
HOOVER NO. MATHIS MATHIS. NO
MERIT SOUCI. MURATSUCHI AYE,
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. I WARD WOULD
WOULD ICEBERG. WHERE I. BILL IS
OUR SIX VOTES WILL EVEN OPEN.
PERHAPS SOME MEMBERS. AND THANK
YOUR NEXT BILL IS SB 4 20. BILL.
THANK YOU TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUILD
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
LINES A LOT FASTER. TO ENSURE
GENERATED CLEAN ENERGY IS
GETTING TO ITS DESTINATION. UM
THIS THREAT THRESHOLD USED TO BE
A LOT LOWER. IT USED TO BE 50
KILOVOLTS. IT GOT RAISED UP TO
200 KILOVOLT, UM AS A, UH, AS
PART OF A PROCESS, UM. THAT WAS
HAPPENING. I THINK IN 1994 SO
THIS BILL IS REALLY TO FAST
TRACK MOVE THAT LIMIT BACK UP TO
138 KILOVOLTS THAT THIS WOULD
TREAT SUB TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE SIMILAR TO
DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF PERMITTING,
REDUCING DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND
SHORTENING PROJECT TIMELINES.
ALL THESE PROJECTS WOULD STILL
BE SUBJECT TO OTHER PERMITS.
INCLUDING THOSE OF OTHER STATE
AGENCIES THAT ENFORCE OTHER, UM
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
, AND MOREOVER, THE BILL EXEMPTS
PROJECTS FROM FROM THIS
EXEMPTION IN HIGH IMPACT SITES
SUCH AS REMEDIATED SITES, THOSE
UNDISTURBED LAND THOSE LOCATED
WETLAND OR WITHOUT WITH AN
ENDANGERED SPECIES, SO AT THE
END OF THE DAY, CAREENING
CONSISTENCY IN THE WAYS THAT LOW
IMPACT TRANSMISSION LINES ARE
PERMITTED IS REALLY CRITICAL TO
US MEETING OUR GOALS WE HAVE TO
GREAT WITNESSES HERE AND SUPPORT
ALEX JACKSON AND MARK JOSEPH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TWO
MINUTES. TWO MINUTES PER
WITNESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS MARK JOSEPH FROM TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES TO
MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
CALIFORNIA A LOT OF WORK TO
UPGRADE THE ELECTRIC GRID TO
SUPPORT ALL THE NEW USES COMING.
AND OUR REGULATORY PROCESS,
WHILE PERHAPS OKAY FOR THE PRIOR
WORLD IS NOT ADAPTED TO OUR
CURRENT OR THE FUTURE WORLD OF
RAPIDLY. CHANGING CLIMATE. FOR
20 ADDRESSES A SMALL SLICE OF
THAT PROBLEM. AT FIRST, SOME
HISTORY. PRIOR TO 1994. WHEN OUR
UTILITY UH. HAD A PROJECT ON
DISTRIBUTION, SUB TRANSMISSION
AND TRANSMISSION UP TO 200
KILOVOLTS DID NOT REQUIRE ANY
PERMITS AT ALL FROM THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION. IN 1994,
THE COMMISSION LOWERED THE
THRESHOLD TO 50 KILOVOLTS WHAT
WE THINK OF AS THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM. SO FOR THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM NOW THERE ARE NO PERMITS
REQUIRED AT ALL. THEN THERE ARE
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF THESE
PROJECTS. EVERY YEAR. SB 4 20
WOULD SWING THE PENDULUM BACK
PART WAY JUST PART WAY SO THAT
SOME LOW IMPACT PROJECTS BETWEEN
5100 AND 38 KILOVOLTS WHAT WE
CALL SUB TRANSMISSION. WOULD BE
TREATED LIKE WE TREAT
DISTRIBUTION. THE UTILITIES
WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY PERMITS
FROM THE PUC, BUT ONLY FOR SOME
LOW IMPACT PROJECTS. IT HAS TO
BE ON PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED LAND
OR AN URBANIZED AREA. OR ALREADY
PART OF A SECRET REVIEW FOR A
LARGER PROJECT AND NOT ON THE
WETLANDS, NOT IN A HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITE AND NOT IN CRITICAL
HABITAT. THE LARGER PROJECTS
THAT DON'T MEET THESE CRITERIA
WOULD CONTINUE TO GET THE
PERMITS AS THEY GET THEM TODAY.
NOW WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
REQUIRES BALANCING OF COMPETING
INTERESTS. WE HAVE TRIED TO
CARVE OUT THE LOW IMPACT
PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY
THE SAME AS THE DISTRIBUTION
PROJECTS FOR WHICH WE ALREADY
REQUIRE NO PERMITS. AFTER ALL,
THERE REALLY IS NOTHING
ENVIRONMENTALLY DIFFERENT
BETWEEN BUILDING A SUBSTATION
WITH THE 50 KILOVOLT
TRANSFORMER. AND BUILDING ONE
WITH 66 KILOVOLT TRANSFORMER. I
CERTAINLY COULDN'T TELL THE
DIFFERENCE BY LOOKING. I BET FEW
OF US COULD YEAH, ONE REQUIRES
NO PERMITS, AND THE OTHER
REQUIRES FULL SECRET COMPLIANCE.
THIS MODEST, LIMITED STEP. THANK
YOU. THIS MADNESS LIMITED STEP
WOULD HELP SPEED UP SOME OF THE
CRITICAL PROJECTS. WE NEED TO
REDUCE THE HUGE CLIMATE IMPACTS
FROM THINGS LIKE HEAVY DUTY
TRUCKING WITH ALL OF ITS DIESEL
EMISSIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
ALEX JACKSON WITH THE AMERICAN
CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION. WE ARE
A TRADE GROUP REPRESENTING
DEVELOPERS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROJECTS ACROSS MULTIPLE
TECHNOLOGIES, ONSHORE WIND,
OFFSHORE WIND, SOLAR AND
STORAGE. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT
MY COAL WITNESS HERE. I KNOW THE
HOUR IS LATE, BUT I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THE POINT THAT
THEY'RE MAKING. WE ARE FACING A
BUILD OUT OF CLEAN ENERGY NEEDS
THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR
STATE'S HISTORY UNDER THE
GOVERNOR'S RECENT ENERGY PLAN,
WE'RE LOOKING ON THE ORDER OF
148 GIGAWATTS OVER THE NEXT TWO
DECADES. THAT'S ROUGHLY
EQUIVALENT TO 7 70 DIABLO CANYON
NUCLEAR PLANTS. TO BE ABLE TO
CONNECT THAT NEW GENERATION TO
LOAD CENTERS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO EXPAND AND UPGRADE OUR
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IN PARALLEL
NOW THAT IS A HOLISTIC
UNDERTAKING. AND THIS
LEGISLATURE, I THINK HAS DONE
SOME GOOD INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS
TO LAY OUT THE SCOPE OF THAT
PROBLEM. IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE
BETTER PLANNING NEW APPROACHES
THE FINANCING WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, BUT ONE OF THE
BARRIERS WHERE WE'VE ENCOUNTERED
AS PERMITTING SO IS MR JOSEPH
OUTLINED AND SENATOR BECKER
OUTLINED THIS PROPOSAL IS FAIRLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S PROPOSING
TO RAISE THE CURRENT BOTH HIS
THRESHOLD TO TREAT MORE OF THE
SUB TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. LIKE
DISTRIBUTION AND PUT IT ON A
FAST TRACK. I WOULD EMPHASIZE
THIS IS NOT ACROSS THE BOARD,
IT'S ONLY FOR A LIMITED SLICE OF
PROJECTS THAT WE THINK ARE
APPROPRIATE. AND IN THAT CASE,
WE JUST FEEL LIKE ON BALANCE.
GIVEN THE CLIMATE CLIMATE
CRISIS, WE'RE FACING THE RISK OF
DELAY. AND UM, TAKING LONGER.
THESE LENGTHY PERMITTING
PROCESSES OUTWEIGHS THE NEED FOR
REQUIRING THOSE PROJECTS TO
UNDERGO EXTENSIVE REVIEW. SO
WHILE FAIRLY LIMITED, WE THINK
THIS THIS BILL WILL HELP
ALLEVIATE DELAYS FOR PROJECTS
LIKE SUB TRANSMISSION LINES AND
SUBSTATIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT
NEW RENEWABLE GENERATION AND
BUILD OUT THE GRID TO
ACCOMMODATE THE ELECTRIFICATION
THAT'S COMING FROM TVS AND
BUILDINGS AND WE ASKED FOR MY
VOTE. THANK YOU NEXT, ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. ADAM
SMITH, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON AND STRONG SUPPORT.
MELISSA ROMERO WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT
AND WAS ALSO ASKED TO PASS ALONG
THE SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND. THANK YOU. BRADY
THAT ENGLAND CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE HERE IN SUPPORT.
COLLECTING WITH A SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP IN SUPPORT.
SYLVIA SO LEASH ON BEHALF OF
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED IN
SUPPORT. CARA MARTINSON ON
BEHALF OF THE LARGE SCALE SOLAR
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. GENESIS
TANK ON BEHALF OF CLEANER TASK
FORCE IN STRONG SUPPORT. MEGHAN
SHUMWAY. IN SUPPORT OF
INDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG IS ALSO IN SUPPORT.
AUDREY HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC
TRANSPORTATION COALITION AND THE
CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. JOHN MARTIN ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF
ENGINEERING COMPANIES AND
SUPPORT. JONAH BLUES ON BEHALF
OF 3 50 HUMBLE IN SUPPORT. JULIA
GALILEO ON BEHALF OF 3, 50,
SACRAMENTO AND 3 50 AREA ACTION
IN SUPPORT. SYRIA LAURIE ON
BEHALF OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA AND
THE CALIFORNIA INDIVISIBLE GREEN
TEAM. THANKS. CAROL VAN SANT FOR
1002 GRANDMOTHERS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS AND THE CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT, SILICON VALLEY
AND 3 50. VENTURA COUNTY CLIMATE
UP ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
NEXT. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION? OKAY. SEE NONE
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MURATSUCHI.
JUST REAL QUICKLY, SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS
ALSO AN ISSUE THAT I'M VERY MUCH
, UM, FOCUSED ON. I APPRECIATE
YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. UM I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE STATES
LIKE I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT TEXAS
APPEARS TO BE HAVE MADE
TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN EXPANDING
THEIR TRANSMISSION GRID MUCH
FASTER THAN THAN, UH, THEN THEN
, THEN CALIFORNIA AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO A YOU KNOW,
CONTINUING THIS EFFORT TO BE
ABLE TO BRING ALL OF OUR
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
ONLINE FAST ENOUGH SO THAT WE
CAN UH, MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE
FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
WOULD BE HONORED TO BE ADDED AS
A CO AUTHOR HERE, BILL THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WOULD
QUESTION FOR EITHER THE
WITNESSES OR THE OR THE AUTHOR,
UM OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE WE'RE
STRUGGLING WITH CHALLENGES WITH
INTERCONNECTION AND AS YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THIS IS
DISTRIBUTION. HOW ROUGHLY HOW
MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK THIS CUTS
OFF THE PROCESS FOR SOME OF
THESE PROJECTS? I MEAN, THAT'S
THAT'S I KNOW THAT'S A DIFFICULT
QUESTION. WE KNOW THAT THE
TRANSMISSION PEACE PERMITTING,
FOR THAT IS 7 TO 10 YEARS.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL,
OBVIOUSLY THAN WHAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH HERE. BUT ARE WE
JUST NIP? OR WE JUST NIBBLING AT
THE EDGES HERE OR OR IS THIS
GOING TO HAVE A REAL IMPACT?
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SOME
OF THEM WERE WOULD I WOULD SAY
IT'S GOING TO HAVE A REAL
IMPACT. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A
GIANT IMPACT. THERE ARE
APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN OF THESE
PROJECTS PENDING AT THE PSC AT
ANY ONE TIME. UM SO TWO DOZEN
PROJECTS A YEAR. UM I WOULD NOT
HAVE TO BE THERE NOW. THOSE
PROJECTS ARE CRITICAL PROJECTS
THERE IN THE IN BETWEEN CATEGORY
BETWEEN THE SMALL DISTRIBUTION
AND BIG TRANSMISSION. UM THEY
ARE IMPORTANT FOR THINGS LIKE UM
FLEET CHARGING DEPOTS. WHICH MAY
HAVE YOU KNOW A 10 OR 20
MEGAWATT. DEMAND AT ANY ONE TIME
THAT REQUIRES UPGRADING OR OR
BUILDING A NEW SUBSTATION, THE
KINDS OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD
REALLY BE MOST AFFECTED BY THAT.
GREAT. OKAY, THANK YOU
APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEE NONE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES YOU
KNOW, I THINK WE ALL DID. GOOD
WORK AND THANK YOU CHAIR. WE ALL
DID GOOD WORK WITH THE PACKAGE
THAT WAS SIGNED TODAY. AND I
THINK AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS
THAT WERE MADE, THIS IS KIND OF
ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PACKAGE. I
THINK THERE'S A POSSIBLE POWER
PACKAGE WITH SOME OTHER BILLS
THAT ARE ALSO MOVING FORWARD.
BUT THIS IS 11 PIECE OF IT AND
RESPECTFULLY ASKED WHEN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. I DO. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND IT'S OKAY. OKAY WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SORRY I WASN'T HERE. UM,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
UTILITIES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE.
RIBAS AYE. LEAVE US I FLORA.
ADDIS. ADDIS I. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN, I HOOVER HOOVER I.
MATHIS MATHISEN MARZOUKI ITSUKI.
I PELLERIN WARD PELLERIN. AYE.
WARD. WOULD WOULD I SPUR SUPER
AYE. OKAY THAT BILL HAS NINE
VOTES, AND WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
CONNECTS TO. WE'RE CONTINUING TO
GO AND SIGN AN ORDER. SENATOR
LAIRD IS NEXT. THIS IS SB 508.
BOOM. NINE, A SECOND. THAT'S
IMPRESSIVE. UH HUH. NO I WAS
JUST IN AN EXTENSIVE SENATE
NATURAL RESOURCES HEARING THAT
JUST ENDED WHILE WE WERE ALL
QUIETLY WATCHING THE TV OF YOU
TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE SO THANK
YOU, UM I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SENATE BILL 508, AND I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT EMOTION
HAS BEEN MADE. BUT LET ME BE
REALLY CLEAR BECAUSE I'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH A LOT OF YOU
IN THE LAST 24 HOURS. AND I
THINK IT IS REALLY CRYSTALLIZED
WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND WHAT I
WANT TO SAY. BECAUSE THE REAL
ISSUE IS THAT WE ARE HAVING
TROUBLE GETTING PEOPLE INTO THE
LEGAL SYSTEM FOR CANNABIS AND
THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LOTS OF
RESOURCES CAN GET IN. AND THE
PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE MANY
RESOURCES, FIND OBSTACLES AND
ARE HAVING TROUBLE. AND THERE
ARE MANY REASONS I IN PRESENTING
A BILL A WHILE AGO WAITING.
HOPING THAT THE HEARING WOULD
END HERE. IN IN REVENUE TAX. I
SAT THROUGH A CANNABIS TAX BILL
TO CHANGE THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS
ONE OF THE ISSUES OF MANY OF
THEM TO DO. AND THERE'S BEEN
SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THIS AND I
WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR.
THIS BILL TAKES, IN ESSENCE
DOING SEEK WHAT? TWICE ON THE
SAME PROJECT AND JUST DOING IT
ONCE. AND SO IF THERE IS NOW A
RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND ELITE
AGENCY. IT REALLY MEANS SOCIAL
LEAD AGENCY. IT MEANS YOU STILL
GO THROUGH THE REVIEW, AND
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS
RAISED. ONE OF THEM IS THAT
THERE WAS THE DEAL FOR NO
EXEMPTIONS TWO YEARS AGO. THIS
IS NOT AN EXEMPTION. YOU STILL
DO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. YOU DO
NOT SEE THE WORD EXEMPTION
ANYWHERE IN THE IN THE BILL OR
IN THE ANALYSIS, THERE'S BEEN
CONCERN ABOUT SOME PROBLEM
COUNTIES AND SOMEHOW THIS IS
GIVING THEM A LEG UP MENDOCINE.
OH IS ONE THAT IS NAMED
FREQUENTLY WELL UNDER THE
CURRENT SITUATION, THE STATES
TAKING IT OVER THERE. THE WHEAT
AGENCY. UM THIS BILL WOULD
ACTUALLY NOT CHANGED THAT
SITUATION. IT WOULD LEAVE IT
EXACTLY IN PLACE. AND THERE'S
BEEN CONCERNED THAT SOMEHOW
WE'RE NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH
PEOPLE. WE HAVE TAKEN AMENDMENTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND I
THINK SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT ON
SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS, THEY
CAN KILL THE BILL. BUT WE HAVE
TO DO SOMETHING. IF WE DO THIS A
YEAR FROM NOW WE HAVE A BUNCH OF
PEOPLE THAT WON'T MAKE IT INTO
THE SYSTEM, AND WE HAVE TO DO
THINGS TO GET THEM THERE. AND
THERE ARE, UM THERE WAS AN ISSUE
RAISED IN THE ANALYSIS AND I'M
WORKING HERE. TO FIND WHERE IT
IS. UM AND THAT IS ON PAGE SEVEN
OF THE ANALYSIS. THAT CONCERN
WAS RAISED THAT IT'S UNCLEAR IF
THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE TWO LINE 21
REGARDING CONFORMED TO THE SCOPE
IS SUFFICIENT. THIS WAS RAISED
TO US. A SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY
THE COMMITTEE STAFF TO CHANGE
THE LANGUAGE. THE SAME PROJECT
TO ENSURE THERE IS A CLEAR AND
PRECISE MEANING. I AGREE TO
THAT. AND IF THIS BILL MOVES OUT
. I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO
COMMIT TO TAKE THAT AMENDMENT SO
THAT WE RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. AND
I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHO
IS FOR AND AGAINST THIS BILL ONE
OF THE INTERESTING THINGS IS
THAT IT IS THE SMALL GROWERS. IT
IS A SMALL PEOPLE. IT IS THE
FARMERS AND BIG SUR THAT ARE IN
MY DISTRICT AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LATTICES DISTRICT. THAT HAVE HAD
TROUBLE GETTING INTO THE SYSTEM.
AND THEY ARE, IRONICALLY, WHAT
WE HAVE COME TO REFER TO HIS
LEGACY FARMERS. THEY'VE BEEN
THERE FOR 10 2030 YEARS AND THEY
WANT TO BE LEGAL AND WE WANT
THEM TO BE LEGAL, AND WE WANT TO
REMOVE THE OBSTACLES TO DO THAT.
SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT MOTION
HAS BEEN MADE, AND THIS IS LIGHT
I WILL HAPPILY DEFER TO MY
WITNESSES IN THE DISCUSSION, BUT
I'M WILLING TO ADDRESS ANY
CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE AND
I'M WILLING IF THERE ARE GENUINE
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THIS
BETTER, I'M TOTALLY OPEN TO
THEM. AND WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK
. THANK YOU AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE AND WITH ME HERE. UM ARE
TWO WITNESSES THAT WILL ON THE
SHINE RETIRING AMY BROWN IS HERE
AND MARCUS HERE AS WELL, AND
THEY WILL SAY WHO FOR AND WHAT
THEIR THEIR PURPOSES. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR MARK SMITH ON BEHALF
OF ORIGINS COUNCIL WE REPRESENT
OVER 800 LICENSED SMALL
INDEPENDENT CANNABIS BUSINESSES
AND THE RURAL PRODUCING COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
PREDOMINANTLY THE LEGACY FARMERS
THAT WERE JUST MENTIONED. WE'VE
BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE
LEGISLATURE ON SEQUEL RELATED
CANNABIS POLICY ISSUES SINCE OUR
FOUNDING SINCE THAT TIME,
PROVISIONALLY LICENSED CANNABIS
OPERATOR STATEWIDE HAVE BEEN
FACING ONGOING LICENSING,
INSECURITY AND CYCLICAL EXIST.
EXISTENTIAL LICENSING CRISIS IS
AN INFORMAL SURVEY OF OUR
MEMBERSHIP, WHICH SPANS FIVE
RURAL COUNTIES. MEMBERS ARE
REPORTING TIMELINES OF WEEKS TO
MONTHS FOR DCC TO REVIEW FINAL
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF ANNUAL LICENSES.
THIS DOCUMENTATION INCLUDES
CERTIFIED SEQUA DOCUMENTATION
FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND IN
MANY CASES THAT SECRET
DOCUMENTATION IS THE ONLY NEW
DOCUMENTATION BEING CONSIDERED
BY DCC. AT LEAST HALF OF THE
OPERATORS SURVEYED ARE
EXPERIENCING TIMELINES FROM 4 TO
8 MONTHS FOR DCC TO ISSUE ANNUAL
LICENSES TO ACTIVE PROVISIONALLY
LICENSED OPERATORS. THIS IS A
CONSIDERABLE CONCERN FOR OUR
ORGANIZATION, GIVEN STATUTORY
TIMELINES AND THE SUNSET RELATED
TO PROVISIONAL LICENSING. AS OF
THIS AFTERNOON. STATE DATA
REFLECTS THAT HALF OF THE
LICENSED CANNABIS BUSINESSES IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STILL
HAVE NOT ACHIEVED ANNUAL
LICENSURE. THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES WHO
CURRENTLY SERVE AS SEQUEL
RESPONSIBLE ENTITIES FOR
CANNABIS CULTIVATION, LICENSING
PROJECTS AND WHO WOULD CONTINUE
TO DO SO. UNDER THIS BILL HAVE
BOTH THE CAPACITY AND THE
EXPERTISE TO DO IT WELL, SP 508
PROPOSES AND URGENTLY NEEDED
EFFICIENCY TO THE STATE
LICENSING PROCESS. WITHOUT
UNDERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND PROTECTIONS. WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AMY
BROWN, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH. WANT TO FOR THE SAKE
OF BEVERLY WILL BE VERY QUICK ON
THIS ONE OF THANK SENATOR LATE
FOR AUTHORING THIS BILL TO DATE
THE CITY HAS COMPLETED PROJECT
SPECIFIC SECRET DOCUMENTATION
FOR 64 MEDICINAL. AND OR ADULT
USE CANNABIS BUSINESSES,
INCLUDING CULTIVATION,
MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION, LAB
TESTING AND RETAIL. THIS
REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT STAFFING,
CAPACITY AND RESOURCES. WE THINK
THAT S B 508 WOULD HELP TO
FASTER, MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS,
UH AND STREAMLINE THE EXISTING
DUAL LICENSE PROCESS. AS FOR MY
BOAT, THANKS. ARE THERE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT? APPEARANCE COMPANY WAY
SUPPORT. THAT THAT'S ON IS
DETERMINED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT?
JUST SO THAT SURE. RAND MARTIN
ON BEHALF OF THE PARENT COMPANY
AND VERY STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ITALIAN TOMATO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA NORMAL WE REPRESENT
CONSUMERS AS WELL AS STIES E.
AND I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO READ
AND SUPPORT FOR FROM C C I A
THANK YOU. NICK ROWLANDS AIRCREW
STRATEGIES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND
SUPPORT. SHARED A CAT ON BEHALF
OF THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES AND SUPPORT EIGHT, A
WELDER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY
OF MONTEREY AND SUPPORT NEXT.
ARE THERE WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. GREAT TO SEE YOU.
OH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS COREY BROWN AND AN
ATTORNEY WITH THE RESOURCES
LEGACY FUND WERE NONPROFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, AND WE WERE
INVOLVED IN WRITING MANY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PROVISIONS AND PROPOSITION 64
1ST. I'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR
LARRY FOR MANY OPPORTUNITIES
WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS TO WORK
WITH THEM FOR TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP. THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME WE'VE EVER HAD TO OPPOSE
ONE OF HIS MEASURES. THERE ARE
FOUR REASONS WHY WE URGE YOU TO
OPPOSE SB 508 AS YOU CAN SEE IN
THE PAPER THAT WE JUST HANDED
OUT PROPOSITION 64 INCLUDED
EXPRESS PROVISION THAT THE
ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE PROTECTED
AND THAT THE STATE WAS GOING TO
ENSURE THAT THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED. THAT WAS
ESSENTIALLY ESSENTIALLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SOMETIMES DO A GOOD
JOB. SOMETIMES THEY DON'T DO A
GOOD JOB ANALYZING AND ADOPTING
MEASURES TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE CRAFTED THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS OF
PROPOSITION 64 THE STATE AGENCY
HANDING OUT THE PERMITS WAS
CRITICAL TO MAKING SURE THAT THE
ENVIRONMENT WAS PROTECTED. AND
AS MY COLLEAGUE WILL TALK ABOUT
IN A MINUTE WHEN THEY SERVE AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, THEIR JOB IS
BASICALLY TO CATCH. GAPS IN
TERMS OF PROTECTION AND, UH, NOT
TO DUPLICATE. THERE ARE
PROVISIONS WITHIN THE LAW THAT
REQUIRED THEM TO USE THE
EXISTING SECRET DOCUMENTS, UH,
THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
APPROVE. UNLESS THOSE DOCUMENTS
ARE SO INADEQUATE. THEY CAN'T BE
USED TO BASE A DECISION ON THERE
ISN'T DUPLICATION. THERE'S MANY
PROVISIONS IN SEQUA THAT THAT
PROTECTED SECONDLY, IN 2021 ARE
LEFT ALONG WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS AGREED TO EXTEND
THE SEQUEL EXEMPTIONS FOR
PROVISIONAL LICENSES, WHICH WERE
NEVER PART OF PROPOSITION 64
FROM EIGHT TO NEARLY 10 YEARS.
THAT'S 10 YEARS OF SEQUEL
EXEMPTIONS TO GIVE INDUSTRY A
CHANCE TO PREPARE THE SECRET
DOCUMENTS AND DO ALL THIS WORK.
PART OF THAT CAREFULLY
NEGOTIATED, UH, BUDGET TRAILER
BILL. MR WOODS WAS VERY INVOLVED
IN WAS A PROVISION THAT WE ASKED
TO BE PLACED INTO THE CODE THAT
SAID AFTER THIS PERIOD. THERE
WILL BE NO MORE SECRET
EXEMPTIONS WHEN WE GO BACK TO
OUR CONSTITUENCIES AND TELL THEM
WHY WE AGREED TO COMPROMISE IS
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL HIM
IN CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE
COMPROMISES WILL BE STUCK TO.
WE'VE DONE OUR PART IN STICKING
TO THE DEAL. WE HOPE YOU'LL
UPHOLD THAT PART AS WELL. THE
THIRD PROBLEM. I SHOULD ALSO
MENTION THAT UNDER THE LAW THE
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
IS THE ONLY STATE ENTITY THAT
CAN PUT PROVISIONS TO PROTECT
THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE STATE
CANNABIS LICENSES AND ENFORCE
THOSE PROVISIONS, WHICH IS VERY
CRITICAL IF THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED
TO BE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, THAT'S
THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY
DETRIMENTAL TO PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND THE ISSUE
WHETHER THIS IS A SECRET
EXEMPTION THE BILL ON PAGE TWO
LINES THREE THROUGH SEVEN SAYS,
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF
A LICENSE PURSUANT TO THIS
DIVISION. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO SERVE AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNDER CEQA,
THAT IS AN EXEMPTION FROM SEQUEL
REQUIREMENTS. FINALLY SB 508
SETS A BAD PRECEDENT. UNDER
SEQUEL FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.
ALL STATE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT. THIS WOULD SET THE
PRECEDENT THAT PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT IS OPTIONAL. FOR A
STATE AGENCY. WE THINK THAT'S A
VERY DETRIMENTAL PRESENT TO SET.
THE STATE. AGENCIES ARE VERY
IMPORTANT TO PROTECTING ANY
ERRORS. OR UM, MRS THAT THE
LOCALS PROVIDE. THEY DON'T
DUPLICATE THE LOCAL EFFORT, BUT
RATHER THEY PROVIDE A SAFEGUARD
TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND
PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES. THIS
BILL VIOLATES BOTH THE VIA THE
EXPRESS LANGUAGE AND PROPOSITION
64 THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AS
WELL AS THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE IN
THE 2021 BUDGET TRAILER BILL FOR
THOSE REASONS WE ARE DUE TO VOTE
AGAINST THIS BILL. WE'VE OFFERED
THE AUTHOR 10 DIFFERENT IDEAS
AND HOW YOU CAN HELP SMALL
GROWERS. WE'RE COMMITTED TO
WORKING ON THAT WE'VE DONE
GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP
FOSTER A GOOD LEGAL MARKET, AND
WE'RE IN THIS FOR THE LONG TERM,
BUT WE THINK THIS UNDERMINES THE
VERY VOTER PROTECTIONS THAT THE
VOTERS ADOPTED IN 1920 16 WHEN
THEY APPROVED PROPOSITION 6 64.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME
IS KIM DELFINO AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE AND THE CALIFORNIA
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DEFENDERS
AND SEE MPS ARE IN OPPOSITION TO
SB 508 RESPECTFULLY. WE DO
DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE BEHIND
THIS BILL, WHICH IS THAT
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
OR DCC. CONDUCTS DUPLICATIVE OR
WASTEFUL, OR, UM, NOT VALUE
ADDED TO THE SEQUEL REVIEW
PROCESS. WE BELIEVE THAT
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROLS
RESPONSIBLE ACTION AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IS THERE FOR
A REASON. BUT SB 508 WOULD
ELIMINATE THE CCS ROLE AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY. THEREFORE IF
A LOCAL LEAD AGENCY HAS FAILED
TO IDENTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT THROUGH THE SEQUEL
PROCESS AS HAS HAPPENED, DCC
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THE
LEAD AGENCY TO REVISE ITS SECRET
DECISION. IT WOULD ALSO NOT BE
ABLE TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE
LICENSE REQUIREMENTS. AH ACTIONS
TO ADDRESS OR MINIMIZE
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. PROPONENTS
OF THE BILL SAY, WELL, THE STATE
BOARD WATERBOARD OR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
, YOU KNOW THEY CAN WEIGH IN AS
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES IF THEY'RE
DOING PERMITS, BUT THERE ARE
CULTIVATION LICENSES THAT DO
MOVE FORWARD THAT DON'T REQUIRE
2081 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
REQUIREMENTS OR STREAM BED
ALTERATION AGREEMENT
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH MEANS THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE WOULD BE ACTING ONLY AS
A TRUSTEE AGENCY AND THEREFORE
LOCAL LEAD AGENCY COULD
DISREGARD AND THERE ARE EXAMPLES
OF WHEN THEY HAVE DISREGARDED
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN SONOMA COUNTY, THE
COUNTY FAILED TO INCLUDE
BURROWING OWL IMPACT, EVEN
THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTED
ON THE PROJECT IN HUMBOLDT
COUNTY. DEPARTMENT FOUND THAT
THERE WERE GOLDEN EAGLE IMPACTS,
BUT THOSE IMPACTS WERE NOT
INCLUDED. THERE ARE MULTIPLE
OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHERE LOCAL
LEAD AGENCIES HAVE IGNORED
SEDIMENT FLOWING INTO STREAMS.
GRADING PROBLEMS, AIR QUALITY
PROBLEMS NEAR SCHOOLS AND OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AND WHILE
THERE ARE LOCAL LEAD AGENCIES
DOING A GOOD JOB, THERE ARE,
UNFORTUNATELY MANY INSTANCES
WHERE LOCAL PERMITTING HAS
FAILED IN THEIR APPLICATION OF
SEQUA. THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT
OF CANNABIS CONTROLS RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY AUTHORITY IS NOT
DUPLICATIVE OF LOCAL LEAD AGENCY
ACTION AND IS ACTUALLY VERY
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA ADHERES TO ITS
COMMITMENTS IN PROP 64 TO
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE WOULD URGE A
NO VOTE ON SB EIGHT BY THE
WEIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT. WE'RE
READY FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ALEX
LOOMER ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, THE
CALIFORNIA COAST PROTECTION
NETWORK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER
AND OPPOSITION. GOOD EVENING,
AARON WILLIAM BEHALF OF SIERRA
CLUB, CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU MEAN
CHRISTINA'S CARRIAGE WITH THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
EVENING. I'M CAMPUS STICK ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA TROUT AND
TROUT UNLIMITED AND WE ARE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANKS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ATIS. YES. I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS YOU
MENTIONED. I ALSO REPRESENT BIG
SUR AND THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
AND I SEE THIS AS VERY IMPORTANT
FOR OUR SMALL CANNABIS FARMERS.
AS YOU MENTIONED THE LEGACY
FARMERS THAT REALLY DO NEED OUR
HELP IN TERMS OF STAYING ALIVE
IN THIS SITUATION, SO THANK YOU
FOR THAT. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
MURATSUCHI. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
RIGHT? I WANTED TO ASK YOU UM,
I'M HEARING THAT IT'S NOT
DUPLICATIVE THAT THE STATE
AGENCY DOES. AS A STATEWIDE
AGENCY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM ISSUES OF. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION THAT A LOCAL AGENCY
MAY NOT BRING UP BECAUSE YOU
RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS. I THINK
THAT THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
MENDOCINO WITH MENDOCINE OWES
THE PERSON UM, ANSWERED. THEY
HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN OVER AS THE
LEAD AGENCY WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
AND I THINK THEY ARE VERY
CONCERNED AND WANT TO MAKE SURE
IT'S DONE. JUST TO DOESN'T
NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DONE AT
BOTH LEVELS THAT EXTENDS THE
PROCESS. AND I THINK THE KEY
UNDERLYING THING HERE AND I
COULD TALK ABOUT A LOT OF IT.
BUT IN MY VIEW UM IT'S NOT
ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THIS BILL
WEAKENS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS PROMISED WITHIN
PROPOSITION 64. NOTHING CHANGES
THE SUBSTANTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS THAT ARE HERE.
SEQUEL IS STILL IN EFFECT, AND I
THINK THE UNDERLYING THING TO
ALL THIS IS THE FACT THAT IT IS
REALLY INCREASINGLY BURDENSOME
FOR THE SMALLER PEOPLE, AND
THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE THEM OUT,
AND WE'RE HAVING THESE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRYING TO HAVE
AN ENDLESS PROCESS. THAT IS THE
PERFECT PROCESS WHEN THERE IS A
PROCESS THAT WILL IN FACT
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT IN PLACE
, WHILE LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO MOVE OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND
NOT BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE
SYSTEM, AND I THINK IF WE WERE
HAVING THIS DISCUSSION A YEAR
FROM NOW, WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE THAT WILL STEPPED OUT OF
LINE. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
WOULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION
THAT TO DO IT ILLEGALLY BECAUSE
THAT IS MORE BENEFICIAL, AND
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR
THEM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU
CAN'T SEPARATE THE FACT THAT
THIS I DON'T THINK IS A
WEAKENING UM, WITH THE FACT THAT
WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS, AND I DID APPRECIATE
THERE WAS A WHITE PAPER. BUT IT
ARRIVED AS WE SHUT DOWN THE
BUDGET AND SAID, HOW ABOUT DOING
ALL THESE BUDGET THINGS? WHEN
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS A
YEAR AND A HALF, AND ANY TIME IN
THAT YEAR AND A HALF IT WAS LIKE
IF THESE ARE THE BUDGET THINGS
YOU CAN DO TO SUBSTITUTE WE
WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING. WE
WOULD HAVE SEEN HOW IT WORKED
WITH THIS, AND I THINK THIS IS
REALLY WITH REGARD TO MAKING
THIS WORKABLE ONE OF OUR FEW
OPTIONS. OKAY I JUST WANT TO SAY
OUT OF MY RESPECT FOR YOU,
SENATOR THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING
PERSONAL, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL BECAUSE
YOU KNOW, I FRANKLY, I CARE MORE
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
AND OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
THEN THE LEGAL CANNABIS INDUSTRY
SO THANK YOU. THANKS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BIRTH. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. I APPRECIATE THIS
. I'VE BEEN REALLY STRUGGLING A
LITTLE BIT WITH THIS, UM, IN
PART BECAUSE YOU KNOW IF THE
APPROVALS WERE TRULY DUPLICATIVE
THAN I THINK. I WOULD, UM YOU
KNOW, I THINK THERE I WOULD GIVE
WEIGHT TO THAT. I GUESS WHAT I
DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS IS
WHAT ARE THE APPROVALS THAT ARE
HAPPENING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VERSUS THOSE THAT ARE HAPPENING
AT THE STATE LEVEL BECAUSE
TYPICALLY THE STRUCTURE UNDER
SEQUA IS THAT WHOEVER THE LEAD
AGENCY IS AND IT MIGHT BE THE
LEAD AGENCY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
WOULD DO A FULSOME EI ARE BASED
ON WHATEVER THAT PROJECT IS, AND
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PERMITTING
A FARM OR IF IT'S PERMITTING
DEVELOPMENT ON A FARM OR
WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE. AND THEN
I ASSUME THAT THE STATE'S
APARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
THEN HAS ANOTHER DISCRETIONARY
ACTION. AND TYPICALLY, IF
THEY'RE NOT DELETE AGENCY, THEY
WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THEY NECESSARILY HAVE TO
BASICALLY COMPLETELY REDO. THE E
I R AGAIN, BUT THEY WOULD
ACTUALLY RE EITHER RELY ON THE
EI ARE SUPPLEMENTED IF THERE'S
SOMETHING RELATED TO THEIR
DISCRETIONARY ACTION THAT WASN'T
STUDIED. SO I GUESS I JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND. AH IT'S JUST SORT OF
SEEMS LIKE THE UNDERLYING SEQUA
REVIEW IS DIFFERENT. I'M JUST
ASSUMING THAN WHAT FROM WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT'S DISCRETIONARY
ACTION IS AT THE STATE LEVEL, SO
I'M SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND SORT
OF THIS. THERE SO THE SAME THAT
YOU CAN GET RID OF YOUR SEQUEL,
ATTORNEY AND I'M DANCING ON
DANGEROUS TERRITORY GOING INTO
THE WEEDS. BUT IF YOU DO A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND IT COMES TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT AND IT'S AN ADEQUATE
UNDER THIS BILL. EVEN THEY CAN,
IN ESSENCE, TAKE CONTROL AND DO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT
WASN'T DONE. THIS DOES NOT
REMOVE THEM FROM THAT PROCESS
THAT THAT IS WHY IN MANY WAYS
I'M CITING THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S
HAPPENED WITH MENDOCINO AND THE
FACT THAT THAT THIS BILL WOULD
NOT CHANGE THAT SITUATION. WHAT
IT DOES IS THE REALITY. IS WHEN
YOU DO HAVE A PROCESS THAT IT IS
, HOWEVER, BROADLY DEFINED
DUPLICATIVE WHERE THERE IS A
FAIRLY COMPLETE ADDITIONAL THING
DONE, THEN THAT IS WHAT DRAWS
OUT THE TIME AND DRIVES PEOPLE
OUT OF THE SYSTEM WHEN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK HAS BEEN
DONE, AND THEY WELL, LOOK AT
THIS, AND THEY WILL MAKE THE
JUDGMENTS IF IT'S INADEQUATE,
BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MEAN THAT AS
A GET GO, YOU WILL HAVE THE
ENDLESS PROCESS AND I THINK WE
SHOULD NOT CONFUSE ANALYST
PROCESS WITH THE PROTECTIONS
THAT WEREN'T PROPOSITION, 94 IT
NEVER MANDATED ENDLESS SEQUA
MANDATED SEQUA AND WE ARE STILL
LEAVING SEQUEL IN PLACE WITH
THIS BILL. I MEAN, I HAVE A
GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR YOU.
BUT I JUST I'M HAVING TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING HOW WHY THIS IS
DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER. CASE
WHERE YOU HAVE A DISCRETIONARY
ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHICH
IS ABOUT ONE THING, AND THEN A
DISCRETIONARY ACTION THAT MAY BE
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT AT THE STATE
LEVEL AND GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY WITH AT THAT POINT HAVE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS
PREPARED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
ANALYZED THE IMPACTS OF THAT
DISCRETIONARY ACTION, AND THEN
THEY COULD RELY ON IT. AND IF
THEY DIDN'T, THEN THEY'D
ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS. AND SO THAT I JUST
DON'T IF THEY'RE EXACTLY THE
SAME ALL THEY WOULD ACTUALLY NOT
SAYING THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME
. BUT THERE IS DUPLICATION AND
IT LENGTHENS THE PROCESS. AND I
WISH I COULD HAVE UM, ONE OF THE
CRAZY MAKING THINGS THAT I THINK
EVERYBODY EXPERIENCES THAT
DIOCESE IS WHEN THE
ADMINISTRATION LOVES SOMETHING
THEY'RE DOING AND SAYS, NO,
NOBODY CAN COME AND ANSWER
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AT THE
HEARING, AND I THINK RIGHT NOW
THEY COULD DEAL WITH YOUR
QUESTION AND A VERY ADEQUATE WAY
. WHY THAT'S NOT I WOULD LIKE TO
GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MISS
DELFINO Tð. ANSWER I BELIEVE
THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BURROWS
CORRECT, BUT I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY. YES SO YOU'RE CORRECT.
SO IN THIS CASE, THE LOCAL LEAD
AGENCY WOULD BE DOING A LOCAL
APPROVAL UNDER THEIR LAND USE
AUTHORITIES. AND SO YOU WOULD BE
DOING SEQUA ON THAT. AND THEN
YOU'RE GOING TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF CANNABIS CONTROL TO RECEIVE A
CULTIVATION LICENSE. AND IN THAT
CASE, THE DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS
CONTROL AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
WOULD BE REVIEWING THE ELITE
AGENCIES SECRET DOCUMENT. IF FOR
SOME REASON THEY FIND THAT
DOCUMENT IS INADEQUATE, THEN
THEY CAN GO BACK TO THE LOCAL
LEAD AGENCY FOR YOU KNOW, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE DCC CULTIVATION
LICENSE, THEY CAN GO BACK AND
SAY YOU KNOW YOU WERE. YOU'RE
MISSING SOME INFORMATION HERE.
YOU FORGOT TO PUT A HYDROLOGY
PIECE IN HERE. AND UM AND THEN
THEY CAN, UM, INCORPORATING
THEIR LICENSE. REQUIREMENTS TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE VERY
ISSUES IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT,
AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR
THE THIS WELL, LET ME JUST
FINISH WHAT I'M SAYING HERE AND
THEN I'LL APPLY IT TO SOMETHING
ELSE. BUT IF YOU ARE STAYING
HERE WHILE DCC IN YOUR IN YOUR
ISSUANCE OF THE CULTIVATION
LICENSE, YOU HAVE TO NOW RELY
UPON THE SECRET DOCUMENT
PREPARED BY X COUNTY. THEY NOW
HAVE NO ABILITY TO GO BACK AND
SAY THIS WAS INADEQUATE FOR
PURPOSES OF REAL ISSUING, THEY
WILL HAVE TO RELY ON IT IN
TOTAL. THE CONCERN I HAVE HERE
FRANKLY, IS WELL IF WE PASS A
BILL LIKE THIS. WHAT COME WHAT
HAPPENS? MAYBE NEXT YEAR WITH
SOMEONE COMES BACK AND SAYS, YOU
KNOW, WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO
HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HAVE TO ACT AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY WHEN THEY'RE
ISSUING A 2081 PERMIT UNDER SISA
, OR STREAM BED, ALTERATION
AGREEMENT OR WHAT ABOUT TALK
DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS WHEN
THEY'RE ISSUING A PERMIT, YOU
KNOW, RELATED TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
OR, YOU KNOW, SO THERE IS SOME
POINT HERE IS THAT THE
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ROLE IS AN
IMPORTANT ROLE. IT'S NOT GIVEN
OUT JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE
FEEL LIKE MAKING DO. IT'S NOT
DUPLICATIVE. IT'S IMPORTANT AND
BECAUSE OF THE LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS FROM DCC, WE DO
REQUIRE THEM. THIS WAS A KEY
PART OF PROP 64. SO I JUST YOU
KNOW YOU WERE SPOT ON IN THE
QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING, UM
AND I THIS IS WHY I'M SAYING
IT'S NOT DUPLICATIVE. YEAH I'D
LIKE TO COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK
THERE'S A NUANCE HERE THAT IS
MISSED IN THAT EXCHANGE IN THE
NUANCE IS THAT INTELLIGENCE
DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE ON THE
IR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OR THE N O. WE BUY
THE LEAD AGENCY AND THAT'S FILED
WITH WITH OPR. UM THE DEPARTMENT
OF CANNABIS CONTROL. UM
CONTINUES TO BE THE RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY. SO THEY ARE THE
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNTIL AFTER
THAT IS COMPLETED, SO THEY HAVE
A CHANCE TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES
IN THE FRONT END ACTIVITIES TO
SORT OF ACTUALLY MAKE THE
DETERMINATION HERE THAT THIS IS
GOING IN THE WAY OR THEY HAVE
FEEDBACK TO DO IT. IT IS IT IS
NOT AS CLEAN AS THEY ARE REMOVED
. THEY ARE THERE AS THE
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNTIL THE
FIRST PART OF THE PROCESS HAS
BEEN COMPLETED. GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR CHAIR, WIN THE
ACTIONS THAT CENTRAL THEY'RE
JUST REFERRED TO ARE CORRECT.
BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR
MITIGATING THOSE IMPACTS, WHICH
IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS COMES
LATER IN THE PROCESS, AND THIS
TAKES AWAY THAT REQUIREMENT THAT
DCC ACT TO MITIGATE THOSE
PROBLEMS. I WANT TO MENTION, UH,
IN TERMS OF A LOT OF THE
PROBLEMS WE SEE OUR AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL IN MR WOODS DISTRICT WITH
MENDOCINE Ó COUNTY. THEY HAD
TROUBLE ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE LOCAL PERMITTING
SYSTEM. SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
AND WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH
INDUSTRY? WE HAD DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS.
THIS SOLUTION WAS NOT TO GET RID
OF DCC, BUT AS TCC TO TAKE OVER
THE RESPONSIBILITY, SIMILAR TYPE
OF THING IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, WHERE THEY'RE ADOPTING
MORE OF A MINISTERIAL PERMIT
SYSTEM. SO THAT DCC WILL. THE
STATE WILL COVER MORE OF THESE
ISSUES WHERE THE DYSFUNCTIONS
HAPPENED IS REALLY AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL. DCC HAS TOLD US WHEN WE
MET WITH THEM IN MARCH THAT WHEN
THE LOCAL APPLE WHEN THE
APPLICANT PROVIDES HIM WITH THE
INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED,
THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION IN 3 TO
4 DAYS, RARELY TAKES MORE THAN A
WEEK OR TWO. THAT HAPPENS ABOUT
THE SAME TIME TÌM D C. IS
LOOKING AT A WHOLE SLEW OF OTHER
ISSUES, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
ADDING TIME. BUT WHAT THIS DOES
WHAT THE BILL DOES IS, IT TAKES
AWAY THAT REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. IT
SETS A BAD PRECEDENT THERE,
SEQUA. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT IT. WE WANT TO
WORK WITH SENATOR LAIRD ON WAYS
OF HELPING THE SMALL GROWERS AND
WE HAVE LOTS OF IDEAS. UM AND
NOT ALL OF THEM REQUIRE BUDGET
ALLOCATIONS. UM BUT THIS BILL
UNFORTUNATELY GOES AT THE HEART
, THE HEART OF THE STRUCTURE
THAT VOTERS APPROVED PROPOSITION
64 AND TAKES AWAY THAT STATE
SAFEGUARD, NOT DUPLICATION, BUT
THE STATE'S SAFEGUARD FOR
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, AND
THAT'S WHY WE STRUGGLED WITH TO
HAVING TO OPPOSE ONE OF MR
LAIRD'S BILLS BECAUSE WE HAVE
SUCH RESPECT FOR HIM, BUT THE
POLICY JUST DROVE US THAT WE HAD
TO PROTECT WHAT THE VOTERS
APPROVED. WE HAD TO KEEP FAITH
WITH THE VOTERS SAID AND TO THE
2021 BUDGET COMPROMISE. ARE YOU?
OKAY AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
OKAY. SEE NONE. UM. SO I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR YOU IN YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT YOU MENTIONED AH, THE
ANALYSIS AND THERE WAS A CONCERN
THAT AND YOU SAID YOU WOULD TAKE
THAT AS AN AMENDMENT. I MISSED
WHAT YOU SAID, AND I JUST WANTED
TO IT WAS SUGGESTED IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT THAT UM. WE WOULD
WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING IN IT
ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS CALLED OUT
IN PAGE SEVEN. AND THERE HAD
BEEN A SOLUTION DISCUSSED. AND
THE ANALYSIS DOESN'T ASK FOR IT.
BUT I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT AS
AN AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE. THAT WAS THE SUMMARY OF
IT. AND TO BE REALLY CLEAR TO
SAY TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID IN THE
OPENING STATEMENT. CONCERN WAS
RAISED THAT IT'S UNCLEAR IF THE
LANGUAGE ON PAGE TWO LINE 21
REGARDING CONFORMED TO THE SCOPE
IS SUFFICIENT. THIS CONCERN WAS
RAISED TO MY STAFF LAST WEEK,
AND A SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY THE
COMMITTEE STAFF TO CHANGE THE
LANGUAGE TO SAME PROJECT TO
ENSURE THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND
PRECISE MEANING MEETING. WE
AGREED TO THAT INFORMALLY AND
THEN THE ANALYSIS DIDN'T ASK FOR
IT. AND I'M SAYING I WOULD AGREE
TO THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEMBERS
KNOW SO. NUMBER SIX IN THE
ANALYSIS PAGE SEVEN. OF YOU'RE
WILLING TO TAKE THAT AS AN
AMENDMENT. YES. HMM. OKAY? I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEE THAT YEAH
. YOU KNOW, I DID HAVE YOU KNOW
CONCERNS AND I KNOW WE TALKED ON
FRIDAY. UM AND YOU KNOW, WE
HAVEN'T WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS
OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HAVEN'T
HEARD BACK. AH AND YOU KNOW YOU
COMMITTED THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE
WORKING ON THIS. UM AND SO THAT
I WILL BE SUPPORTING TODAY. UM
BUT I KNOW WE WILL BE CONTINUING
OUR CONVERSATIONS. UH BASED ON
WHAT YOU TOLD ME ON FRIDAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS
DISCUSSION, AND I THINK THE
DISCUSSION INDICATES THE
COMPLEXITY OF WHAT THIS IS. AND
I WONT WORK TO MAKE SURE IF I
HAVE ANY IMPACT THAT DEPARTMENT
WILL ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE. IN THE REAL ISSUE
HERE. IT'S TO PUT TOGETHER IS I
MEAN MENDOCINO WAS MENTIONED. UM
THIS BILL WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
SITUATION WITH REGARD TO
MENDOCINO, WHERE THE DEPARTMENT
TOOK RESPONSIBILITY, TOOK THE
LEAD AGENCY AND I THINK THAT IS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO, BUT IT IS
RAILWAY. UM IN THOSE CASES, AND
I THINK IN SOME TIMES WE'RE
TRYING TO DESIGN OUR CONCERNS
AROUND WHERE THERE'S TWO OR
THREE DYSFUNCTIONAL COUNTIES,
WHETHER IN ALL 58 COUNTIES. WE
ARE DRIVING PEOPLE OUT OF THE
SYSTEM OR NOT ALLOWING THEM TO
COME IN. AND I APPRECIATE THE
FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON
THIS AND I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS. IF THIS BILL MOVES OUT
OF HERE IN A WAY, BECAUSE I
THINK THE FACT THAT THIS
CONTINUES TO MOVE MEANS THAT
THERE'S A SERIOUS INTENT TO
ADDRESS THIS IN A GOOD WAY, AND
I HOPE IT DRAWS PEOPLE THAT HAVE
THOUGHT THEY COULD KILL THE BILL
TO WANT TO WORK TOGETHER AND
ADDRESS THESE ISSUES WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF THE BILL. I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN IVAN. SO
WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND.
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BUT WITH THE AMENDMENT THANKS
FOR MAKING THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS RIVAS. OH, I
LEAVE US I FLORA FLORA. I ADDIS
ADDIS, I FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I
HOOVER HOOVER. I MATHIS MATHIS.
I MURATSUCHI. NOT VOTING.
PELLERIN AND I WARD WARD. I
WOULD. NOT VOTING. FOR VOTING,
NOT VOTING. BILL HAS EIGHT
VOTES. IT'S OUT. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. THAT'S
IT. I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THE
LIST THAT I HAVE OF THE SIGN AN
ORDER. I HAVE MEN. ALAN CORTEZ
E. PADILLA GONZALEZ AND STERN.
IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WE WERE
GOING TO BE HERE THIS LATE. I
WOULD HAVE ORDERED DINNER, SO I
JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR WIENER. YEAH.
MAYBE SENATOR WEINER WILL BUY US
DINNER, RIGHT? I THINK, UM, AND
SO I KNOW ALL OF US ARE HERE.
WORK. WE'RE READY WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THIS IS, UM. SB 704
SENATOR MEN AND I DO WANT TO
CONGRATULATE YOU BECAUSE I
UNDERSTAND YOU BEAT JOEY
CHESTNUT'S RECORD FOR THE MOST
MOST WIENER IN ONE SITTING, BUT
, UM, BUT, UM, GOOD AT GOOD
EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M PRESENTING SB 704
, WHICH AMENDS THE COASTAL ACT
TO REMOVE OUTDATED OIL AND GAS
POLICIES AND ADDS POLICIES
PROMOTING OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
DEPLOYMENT. THE COASTAL ACT
PROVIDES FOR THE REGULATION OF
DEVELOPMENT IN OUR STATE'S
COASTAL ZONE AND INCLUDES
POLICIES TO PROTECT
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
AND TO ADDRESS EQUITY CONCERNS
AND ADVERSE IMPACTS RAISED BY
DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE COASTAL
ACT WAS ENACTED AT LOOPHOLES
CREATED THAT ALLOWED OIL AND GAS
DEVELOPMENT REFINERIES AND
PETROCHEMICAL FACILITIES TO
CIRCUMVENT ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION STANDARDS OTHERWISE
APPLIED TO ALL OTHER PROJECTS.
THIS PARTICULAR LOOPHOLE, KNOWN
AS THE INDUSTRIAL OVERRIDE
PROVISION IS SEVERELY OUTDATED
AND CONTINUES TO PERPETUATE
OUTDATED 19 SEVENTIES ERA
STATEWIDE ENERGY GOALS. 50 YEARS
LATER. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A
DIFFERENT CLIMATE, LITERALLY,
BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF OUR ENERGY
AND NEW OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
IN THE PROMOTION OF THAT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE'S
EFFORTS TO BE CARBONIZED ECONOMY
AND CHIEF. NET ZERO CARBON
EMISSIONS. SB 704 CLOSES THE
INDUSTRIAL OVERRIDE LOOPHOLE FOR
NEW OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
WHILE ALLOWING EXISTING
FACILITIES TO CONTINUE TO BE
REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED. AND
ALLOWING FOR LOW CARBON UPGRADES
TO REFINERIES. SB 704 TAKES THAT
HEAVY THUMB OFF THE SCALE THAT
HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE OIL
INDUSTRIES BENEFIT FOR SO LONG.
THIS BILL ALSO LEVELS THE
PLAYING FIELD TO ENSURE THAT ALL
NEW OIL AND GAS FACILITIES MEET
THE SAME STANDARDS THAT ARE TO
BE APPROVED AS OTHER PROJECTS A
LONG OVERDUE AND COMMON SENSE
REFORM. FINALLY, IT PROMOTES
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY BY ENACTING
COASTAL ACT POLICIES TO
ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE ITS
DEPLOYMENT. ENSURING THAT WIND
IS AT THE BACK OF OUR OFFSHORE
PLATFORMS. WE'VE NEGOTIATED WITH
OPPOSITION AND TAKEN AMENDMENTS
. THEY ARE NOW NEUTRAL AND THERE
IS NO OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. I
HAVE LARA WALSH FROM THE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
OKAY I'LL KEEP IT SHORT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. NO OPPOSITION IN A
LOT OF EXCITEMENT FROM THE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION. I'M LARA
WALSH. I'M REPRESENTING
SURFRIDER AND ALSO SPECIFICALLY
ARE SOUTH BAY, LONG BEACH AND
NORTH ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTERS, OF
COURSE, ARE NORTH OC CHAPTER WHO
EXPERIENCED THE IMPACT OF THE
OIL SPILL WHAT TWO YEARS AGO
NOW, AND LONG BEACH AND SOUTH
BAY, WHO ARE LIVING AMONGST AND
ON TOP OF SOME OF THE LARGEST
OIL FIELDS IN CALIFORNIA. THIS
BILL CLOSES AN OUTDATED LOOPHOLE
IN THE COASTAL ACT THAT
HOPEFULLY EVERYONE ON THE
NATURAL NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE CAN GET BEHIND BECAUSE
THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT CAN
CAUSE TOXIC WATER, TOXIC AIR AND
THE BEST WE CAN DO IS AT LEAST
MITIGATE AND OF AVOID THOSE
IMPACTS LIKE WE DO FOR OTHER
DEVELOPMENTS ALSO JUST WANT TO
QUICKLY SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR
HUMBOLDT CHAPTER WHO IS FACING,
UM A PROPOSAL FOR A NATURAL GAS
FACILITY ON ITS 1800 ACRES
AROUND THE SENSITIVE HUMBOLDT
BAY. THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF
THING THAT WILL NOW THROUGH THIS
BILL, GET COASTAL COMMISSION
REVIEW AND AVOIDANCE AND
MITIGATION THROUGH THE COASTAL
ACT. SO JUST VERY APPRECIATIVE
OF THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU. OKAY?
NEXT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT AND WAS ALSO ASKED TO
PASS ALONG THE SUPPORT OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THE SWINDLER
ON BEHALF OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. CHRISTINA'S GUARANTEE
THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY AND SUPPORT AND WILLIE
ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT ROTTEN
INTRAPARTY. I'M A PROFESSOR OF
CLIMATE SCIENCE AT UC UCLA. I'M
IN SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA 3 50
, SACRAMENTO AND 3 50 HUMBLED IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HAROLD VAN
SANT 1000 GRANDMOTHERS FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. GREAT JOB. SEE NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. OKAY GREAT
SCENE, THEN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? UH, THANK YOU FOR ALL
YOUR HARD WORK TODAY. YOUR LONG
WORK AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION TREATMENT? OKAY WE DO. WE
HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS. RIVAS RIVAS. I
FLORA FLORA, NOT VOTING AT US. I
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER
HOOVER, NOT VOTING MATHES.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI. AYE
PELLERIN. PELLERIN I WARD WARD.
I WOULD WOULD ICEBERG. MR BURKE?
AYE. YEAH. THAT BILL HAS EIGHT
VOLTS WILL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBER. NEXT, SENATOR
ALLEN. WELL, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. SB. 777 WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO
QUITE AN EXCITING EVENING. UM I
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
ITS ATTENTION TO THE BILL. I
WANT TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.
THIS BILL PROVIDES SOME MUCH
NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR
PLASTIC BAG LAW THAT WE PASSED A
FEW YEARS BACK ABOUT A DECADE
AGO THAT LAW REQUIRE STORES THAT
DO PROVIDE THE THICKER PLASTIC
BAGS TO DO THE FOLLOWING CHARGE
AT LEAST 10 CENTS PER THE BAG
ONLY SELL BAGS THAT ARE DESIGNED
TO BE REUSED AND THAT ARE
RECYCLABLE IN THE STATE, AND
UNTIL ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO, THEY
HAD TO OFFER STOREFRONT BINS FOR
CUSTOMERS TO RETURN THEIR
UNWANTED BAGS FOR RECYCLING. SO
AFTER THE LAW TOOK EFFECT WE DID
SEE A DECREASE IN THE POUNDS OF
PLASTIC PER PERSON GENERATED AS
A RESULT OF THE PLASTIC CARRY
OUT BAGS. BUT AS OF 2021, THAT
NUMBER IS ACTUALLY NOW HIGHER
THAN BEFORE WE BANNED THE
SMALLER SINGLE USE BAGS, SO THIS
BILL IS SEEKING TO GET US BACK
ON TRACK. FIRST, THE BILL
REINSTATES THE STORE TAKE BACK
REQUIREMENT AND INCLUDES
PROVISIONS TO ENSURE THE BAGS
ARE ACTUALLY RECYCLED AT THE END
OF THE YEAR, THEIR USEFUL LIFE
SECONDLY, THE BILL PROVIDES
TRANSPARENCY ON HOW STORIES ARE
SPENDING THE MONEY. THEY CHARGE
CUSTOMERS FOR THE THICK PLASTIC
BAGS. CURRENT LAW ONLY ALLOWS
THE REVENUE COLLECTED FROM
SELLING THE BAGS TO BE USED TO
COVER THE COST OF THE BAG COSTS
OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW OR
FIND EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS TO
ENCOURAGE CUSTOMERS TO REUSE THE
BAG. SO THIS BILL REQUIRES THE
BIG CHAIN RETAILERS TO REPORT
HOW THEY'RE SPENDING THE MONEY
THAT REVENUE THAT THEY GENERATE
FROM THE BAGS SO THAT WE CAN
UNDERSTAND IF THESE BAGS ARE
MONEYMAKER. AND IF SO, WHAT THE
STORIES ARE DOING TO EDUCATE
EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS TO HELP
REDUCE THE WASTE GENERATED FROM
THE BAGS PER THE LAW. WE'VE ALSO
HAD SEVERAL STAKEHOLDER.
MEETINGS WITH FOLKS LOTS OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GROCER'S
RETAILERS, TRYING TO FIND SOME
COMMON GROUND ON HOW TO
ACCURATELY AND EFFECTIVELY
REPORT ON THE DATA. WE HAVEN'T
YET FOUND LANGUAGE THAT ALL
SIDES CAN AGREE TO. I KNOW THAT
WE'RE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER.
WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION'S ENGAGEMENT. WE'RE
GONNA CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM
TO FURTHER REFINE THE REPORTING
PIECE. UH BUT BUT TODAY TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, I'VE GOT
ALBERTO TORRICO HERE WITH UFCW
MARK MURRAY FROM OUR FRIENDS
AGAINST WAYS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. I APPRECIATE YOUR
ATTENTION. GOOD EVENING, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ALBERTO TORRICO MADE
UP OF THE UNITED FOOD AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS. WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL. I THINK SENATOR
ALLEN SUMMARIZED THE BILL. VERY
WELL. I JUST I JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT IT IS WE
DO THINK IT IS A TRANSPARENCY
BILL SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND. HOW
MANY BAGS ARE BEING PURCHASED?
WHAT THE COST OF THOSE BAGS ARE
AND WHAT THE BUT WHAT WE BELIEVE
ABOUT SIGNIFICANT REVENUE THAT'S
BEING GENERATED. THOSE BAGS HAVE
BEEN USED FOR RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
MARK MURRAY WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP CALIFORNIA'S
AGAINST WASTE. THIS BILL IS
CLARIFYING THINGS THAT WE
THOUGHT WE ALREADY HAD. WHEN THE
WITH THE ORIGINAL LAW IN TERMS
OF REQUIREMENT THAT THE BAGS
THAT ARE GENERATED GET TAKEN
BACK TO THE STORES FOR
RECYCLING. UM WE ALSO THOUGHT
THAT WE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT
HOW MANY BAGS WERE BEING
DISTRIBUTED. THIS IS CLARIFYING
THAT AS A AS A GROCERY
RESPONSIBILITY RIGHT NOW, THE
ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT
THE BAGS THAT ARE BEING
GENERATED IS WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES GOING
THROUGH THE SOLID WASTE
AFTERWARDS. AND AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, WE ARE NOW SEEING IN
THE WASTE STREAM GREATER
POUNDAGE OF THESE PLASTIC BAGS
TODAY IN 2021, THEN WE SAW IN
2014. AND SO WE'RE SEEKING THIS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE
GROCERS TO TELL US WHAT IS
REALLY GOING ON HOW MANY BAGS
ARE BEING GENERATED SO THAT WE
CAN DO SOMETHING? TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF BAGS THAT ARE BEING
GENERATED. URGENT I VOTE. NEXT
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
AS HE SWINDLER ON BEHALF OF THE
SHORTLIST. I APOLOGIZE. SOLID
WASTE ASSOCIATION OF NORTH
AMERICA LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE,
AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP, ACTION COUNSEL,
COUNSEL AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
JANET COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION.
CALIFORNIAN SUPPORT THANKS.
CAROL VAN SANT 1000 GRANDMOTHERS
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. ALSO 3
50, VENTURA COUNTY, THE CLIMATE
HUB. THANK YOU. NEXT UM ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? GOOD EVENING, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE LOUIS
BROWN HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA GROCERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. UM I HELPED NEGOTIATE SP 2
70 ON THE GROCERIES WERE PROUD
OF THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY
THAT WE TOOK IN THE LEAD OF THAT
BILL AND SEEING THE PROHIBITION
ON SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS, UH,
GET OUT OF GROCERY STORES AND
OTHER UM RELATED STORES IN THE
MARKET. I THINK WHAT WE'RE
SEEING RIGHT NOW IS A LITTLE BIT
OF A COVID HANGOVER IN THAT
DURING COVID. HOW WE DID NOT
ALLOW FOR REUSABLE BAGS TO BE
BROUGHT BACK INTO THE STORE
BECAUSE THE HEALTH ISSUES THAT
WERE RELATED TO THAT NOT ONLY
FOR CONSUMERS, BUT DEFINITELY
OUR CLERKS. UM AND SO WE'RE IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE
BILL THAT THERE ARE SOME CHANGES
IN SOME CLEANUP THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT BY
CHANCE, ONE OF THE REFERENCES IN
SP 2 70. WAS TO A PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE THAT SUN SETTED
AS IT RELATES TO THE IN STORE.
TAKE BACK SO A LARGE NUMBER OF
OUR GROCERIES ALREADY DO THE IN
STORE. TAKE BACK. WE THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT AND
PUT THAT MANDATE BACK IN THE LAW
SO THAT WE DO START TO SEE THAT
RECYCLING AND THAT CLOSED LOOP.
AS THE AUTHOR SAID. I MEAN, WE
HAVE BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS. OUR
BIGGEST CONCERN IS WITH THE
REPORTING ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN
THE BILL. HOW WE DO THINK THAT
IT COVERS A VAST MAJORITY OF THE
INDUSTRY. STILL $2 MILLION IS A
REALLY LOW THRESHOLD WHEN IT
COMES TO TOTAL SALES. 300
EMPLOYEES STILL VERY LOW
THRESHOLD WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE CHAINS. WE ALSO SEE
THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
BUSINESS INFORMATION. YOU CAN
GLEAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FROM THE DATA THAT WE WOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THIS INFORMATION, SO
WE'RE INTERESTED IN PROVIDING
SOME DATA. WE THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO
SEE THE TREND SHOW THAT THESE
BAGS ARE GOING TO BE USED LESS,
BUT WE THINK THERE'S SOME
DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT THAT
THEY SHOULD GO TO CALVARY CYCLE
. IT SHOULD BE AGGREGATED DATA.
IT SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE
LEGISLATURE. IT SHOULD BE
PROTECTED AS CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION. WE HOPE
THAT WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT.
WITH SENATOR ALLEN AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUED WORKING
WITH HIM TODAY. BUT AS THE BILL
IS IN PRINT, WE'RE IN POST THANK
YOU. NEXT. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. AS SARAH PALMER
YOU ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
EXT WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BURR SO,
SENATOR OUT I APPRECIATE AND I
SUPPORT THE BASIC THRUST OF THE
BILL. I JUST WAS WONDERING IF
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER
YOU'VE CONSIDERED THE POINT MADE
ABOUT PROPRIETARY AND
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND
WHERE THERE IS A WAY OF MAKING
SURE THAT THE REPORTS ARE YOU
KNOW, ARE SORT OF BEING ABLE TO
BE MADE IN CONFIDENTIAL AND THEN
AGGREGATED BEFORE THEY PROVIDED
TO THE PUBLIC. I'M JUST
WONDERING IF YOU THOUGHT THROUGH
THAT AND CONSIDERED IT. YEAH I
MEAN, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE POINT
OF CONTENT. I MEAN, WE'LL
PROBABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
POINT OF CONTENTION. UM YOU
KNOW, I KNOW I KNOW THAT, YOU
KNOW. FOLKS FROM UFCW IF SOME
CONCERNS WITH THAT, BUT WE WERE
GOING TO TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN
THREAD THE NEEDLE ON THIS. UM
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THEY'RE VERY
SER PARTS OF OUR SPONSORSHIP
COALITION. THAT THAT HAVE A
PARTICULAR VISION. AND OF
COURSE, THE GROCERIES HAVE A
DIFFERENT VISION. UM THIS IS THE
NEEDLE THREADING. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY THE ISSUE OF NEEDLE
THREADING WE'RE DEALING WITH. I
MEAN, I DON'T MR TORRICO, IF YOU
WANT TO GIVE YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON
THE ISSUE UM, IF I CUT THROUGH
THE CHAIR THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THERE AS THE CINDERELLA
MENTIONER IS OPENING STATEMENT
THERE. THREE APPROPRIATE USERS
FOR THE FUNDS RAISED FROM THE
FROM THE SALE OF THE BACKS. WE
DON'T THINK WE FIRST OF ALL, WE
THINK THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF BAGS 1ST
AND 2ND. I DON'T THINK THE MONEY
IS BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES.
APPROPRIATED BY THE STATUTE.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE CASE, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET
AT. IT REALLY DEFEATS THE
PURPOSE TO AGGREGATE ALL OF THAT
DATA. WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S
A WE DON'T THINK BREAKING THE
LAW IS PROPRIETARY SHOULD BE. WE
DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
HIDE BEHIND PROPRIETARY. UM,
INFORMATION. IF YOU'RE NOT
FOLLOWING THE LAW. I WOULD JUST
SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF
REGULATORY SCHEMES WHERE
ESPECIALLY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SPACE WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO
SUBMIT INFORMATION WHERE THERE
STILL CAN BE ENFORCED AGAINST
THE PARTICULAR ENTITY, BUT
ISSUES RELATED TO PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION. I JUST THINK IT'S A
VALID ONE THAT DESERVES SOME
FOCUS. AND SO I HOPE I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL. I THINK
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE AND, YOU
KNOW, STRONGLY SUPPORTED BUT I'M
HOPING YOU'LL UM, FOCUS ON THIS
AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY OF,
UM, ADDRESSING THE ISSUES
RELATED TO PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION. THANK YOU. CONNECT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MATHIS. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. QUITE ALL
AFTERNOON. UM SENATOR ALLEN ON
THIS. I KNOW A LOT OF THE
CONCERN WITH GOING AND DOING ALL
OF THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH
PLASTIC BAGS WAS TO GET US. OFF
OF PLASTIC BAGS. ONE THING I
HAVEN'T SEEN IN YOUR BILL. SO
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU. WHY AREN'T
WE PUSHING THINGS LIKE PAPER
BAGS AND OTHER THINGS AND REALLY
ACTUALLY MAKING AN EFFORT ON
THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE
THAT IN THEIR HAIR, SO I GOTTA
KIND OF ASK, LIKE, OKAY, I GET
WE'RE GOING AFTER UH, COMPANIES
KIND OF HIDING BEHIND THE
INFORMATION AND SELLING MORE
PLASTIC BAGS IN MANY CASES, UM,
IN SOME, NOT EVEN HAVING PAPER
AS AN OPTION. UM BUT WHAT ARE WE
DOING TO ENSURE THAT PAPER BAGS
THAT WE KNOW OR NOT GOING TO BE
AN ISSUE? YEAH I MEAN, I THINK
ULTIMATELY AT ITS ITS CORE. THIS
BILL IS ABOUT MEETING THE
ORIGINAL GOALS OF OUR OF OUR
PLASTIC BAG POLICY, WHICH IS,
YOU KNOW, REAL RE USE AND REAL
RECYCLING. AND IF THAT'S NOT
HAPPENING, THEN UH YOU KNOW, WE
GOT TO FIND A BETTER ALTERNATIVE
. UM AND, OF COURSE, PAPER BAGS
ARE THE ALTERNATIVE. UH SO YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PLASTIC BAG
IS MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE MORE
MORE FEASIBLE, BUT BUT BUT AND
YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR GENERAL
FEELING THAT'S OKAY AS LONG AS
THERE IS TRUE REUSE AND TRUE
RECYCLING HAPPENING. UM AND THIS
BILL CALLS THE QUESTION BECAUSE
I THINK ULTIMATELY WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE NOT MEETING THE GOALS THAT
WERE LAID OUT WHEN WE FIRST
PURSUED THE POLICY IN THE FIRST
PLACE AND ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON
THAT. MARK. JUST SAY THAT WHEN
WE ORIGINALLY ADOPTED THE LAW,
RECYCLABLE IN THIS STATE SIMPLY
MEANT TAKE BACK FOR RECYCLING.
WE HAVE NOW UPDATED THAT
DEFINITION. THANKS TO OTHER
LEGISLATION BY SENATOR ALLEN TO
REQUIRE THAT RECYCLABLE MEANS
IT'S ACTUALLY MAKING IT INTO THE
ECONOMIC MAINSTREAM. I WILL SAY
THAT WITH REGARD TO PAPER BAGS,
PAPER BAGS HAVE ALWAYS MET THAT
TEST, UM IN TERMS OF RECYCLABLE
BILITY RECYCLED CONTENT.
CERTAINLY EVERY GROCERY STORE IN
THE STATE. IT'S UP TO THEM IN
TERMS OF THE STORE THE BAGS THAT
THEY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE. I REALLY
LIKE THE PAPER BAGS MADE OF
RECYCLED CONTENT, VERY
RECYCLABLE, COMPOSTABLE AND YOU
KNOW, CORRECT, BUT THE USER
LIKING PAPER BAGS AND MAYBE ME
LIKING PAPER BAGS AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE LIKING
PAPER BAGS DOESN'T PUT A HEY,
MAYBE. STORES OUT OF LIKE, MAYBE
MORE PAPER BAGS AND LESS OF
PLASTIC. THAT'S ALL I'M GETTING
AT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IT IN THE
BILL. THAT'S ALL. WELL I MEAN,
EFFECTIVELY, THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE THIS BILL IS GOING TO HELP
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY
MEETING THAT THE PLASTIC BAG
PORTION OF OUR ECONOMIES MEETING
THE 50 SB 54 GOALS, WHICH WHICH
IS, YOU KNOW THEY HAVE TO MEET
THE RECYCLE ABILITY OR WERE YOU
STANDARDS AND SO TO THE TO THE
TO A LARGE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE
NOT MORE SUSTAINABLE
ALTERNATIVES ARE GOING TO BE AT
THE HEART OF THE ANSWER IF THEY
CAN'T MEET THAT STANDARD. IF
THEY CAN'T MEET THAT RECYCLABLE
STANDARD, THEY WILL BE GONE. WE
KNOW THE PAPER BAGS CAN MEET THE
STANDARD PAPER BAGS ARE STILL IN
THE MARKETPLACE. PAPER BAGS WILL
ALWAYS BE IN THE MARKETPLACE
BASED ON THEIR CAPABILITY OF
BEING CLOSED, LOOP RECYCLED.
THIS IS THERE'S A THERE'S A
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
PLASTIC BAGS TO ACHIEVE THAT,
BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THEY WON'T GET
THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I SEE NONE. I HAVE WE HAVE
EMOTION FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FRIEDMAN. I NEED A SECOND.
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PER.
SENATOR ALLEN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I APPRECIATE THE GOOD
DISCUSSION AND I KNOW YOU'VE HAD
A LOT OF LOT GOING ON THIS
EVENING. BUT BUT THIS IS ABOUT
MEETING THE REAL THE REAL VISION
OF SPT 70. SB 54. AND WITH THAT
I RESPECTFULLY ASTRONAUT VOTE. I
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IT. WILL
YOU BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS? ABSOLUTELY IF YOU
SAID IT DOUBLE THANK YOU. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SECRETARY PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. RIVAS I FLORA.
ADDIS ADDIS, I. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER HOOVER, NOT
VOTING. MATHIS. MATHIS EMERGED.
SUKI SUKI, I, PELLERIN PELLERIN.
I WARD WARD, I WOULD. WOULD I
EVER I THANK YOU MEMBERS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. HOW
MANY BOOKS. THAT BILL HAS NINE.
THOUGHTS WERE LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS WERE IN THE FINAL
FOUR FOR MORE, UH, NEXT UP,
SENATOR CORTEZ. S P 69. MOVE THE
BILL. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. TO
DO THAT. IT'S A VERY SHORT
PRESENTATION. HAPPY TO SAY FOR
ALL OF YOU AND FOR ME. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, UM SP 69
AS TRANSPARENCY INTO THE SECRET
NOTIFICATION PROCESS. CURRENTLY
STATE AGENCIES HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SHORTEN THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD
FOR SEQUA TO DO SO. THEY MUST
SUBMIT NOTICES OF DETERMINATION
OR EXEMPTION. TO OPR. OFFICER
PLANNING RESEARCH AND OPR POSTS
. THESE NOTICES TO THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WEBSITE BUT FOR
LOCAL AGENCIES TO BENEFIT FROM
THE SHORT LIMITATIONS PERIOD,
THEY MUST SUBMIT THESE NOTICES
TO THE COUNTY CORK. OF ANY
COUNTY. A PROJECT IS IN THE
COUNTY CLERK WILL THEN POST
THESE BONUSES ON THEIR OWN
WEBSITE, 58 COUNTIES POSTING TO
58 DIFFERENT WEBSITES CAN MAKE
IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO TRACK
NOTICES, TO SAY THE LEAST. SP 69
WOULD REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC
AGENCIES OPPOSED THESE NOTICES
TO OPR TO BE POSTED THE STATE
KOREAN HOUSE WEBSITE IF THEY
WANT THE SHORTENED LIMITATIONS
PERIOD THIS WAY, ALL OF THE
NOTICES CAN BE FOUND IN ONE
PLACE. THE BILL IS SPONSORED BY
THE CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL
LABORER'S AND HIS LABOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT. UM AND,
UM, LET ME JUST. ASCO OR LET YOU
KNOW THAT WITH US TO TESTIFY
TODAY IS VICTORIOUS UNION WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF
LABORERS AND ALTERNATE OVER TO
HER, IF THAT'S OKAY AND THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. I
KNOW IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG DAY
FOR ALL OF YOU. SO GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS VICTORIA YOUNG. I'M
AN ATTORNEY AT LAZO AND JURY,
WHICH IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW FIRM. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
STATE COUNCIL OF LABORERS.
SPONSOR IT. SB 69. THE LABORERS
UNION URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON
SB 69. THE LABORERS PARTICIPATE
IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF MANY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT COULD
AFFECT WORKERS DUE TO AIR
POLLUTION FROM CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT SO THAT CONTAMINATION
AND OTHER ISSUES THERE IS EQUAL
. WE CAN ENSURE THAT THESE
ISSUES ARE MITIGATED IN THE
PROJECT MAY GO FORWARD SAFELY.
SP 69 FIXES A GAP IN THE SECRET
NOTICE LAW CREATED BY THE RECENT
COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION AND
NOW VIS A VIS SAN JOSE, WHICH
WAS A 2021 OPINION. IN THAT CASE
, A COMMUNITY GROUP PROPERLY
REQUESTED A COPY OF THE NOTICE
OF DETERMINATION FOR A PROJECT
THAT WOULD CONVERT FARMLAND TO
INDUSTRIAL USES PURSUANT TO
SEQUENCE SECTION 21167 F HOWEVER
, THE CITY OF SAN JOSE FAILED TO
PROVIDE THE NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION OR IN OD THAT WAS
REQUESTED, AND AS A RESULT, THE
COMMUNITY GROUP MISSED THE SHORT
30 DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD UNDER
SEQUA. THE COURT OF APPEAL. HOW
THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CITY
CLEARLY VIOLATED SEQUA, THERE
WAS NO REMEDY FOR THIS
VIOLATION. SB 69 FIXES THIS
PROBLEM. IT REQUIRES AGENCIES
WITHIN 24 HOURS TO SEND IN ODS
TO THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH TO POST PUBLICLY ON THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE WEBSITE BY
MAKING THESE MINOR CHANGES TO
SEQUA SECTION 21152. IT WILL
MAKE IT EASIER ON AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH SEQUIN
NOTICE, AND IT WILL ALSO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS.
IN ODS FROM A SINGLE GOVERNMENT
WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT
MAKING ANY CHANGES TO SECTION
21167. HOWEVER SP 69 DOES NOT
CREATE AN OPEN ENDED LIMITATIONS
PERIOD EVEN IF THE AGENCY FAILS
TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO OPR TO POST
ON THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
WEBSITE. ANY LAWSUIT MUST BE
BROUGHT WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE
DAY OF THE AGENCY'S DECISION TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT. THIS IS THE
DEFAULT LIMITATIONS PERIOD THAT
WOULD EVEN APPLY IF NO IN OD IS
POSTED. AND IT PROVIDES A
BACKSTOP. WE BELIEVE SP 69
RESULTS A SERIOUS PROBLEM
CREATED BY THE ALBIES OBESE SAN
JOSE DECISION WHILE BALANCING
THE PUBLIC'S NEED. FOR A
REASONABLE NOTICE AGAINST
DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES NEED FOR
FINALITY. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE
YES. ON SB 69. THANK YOU AGAIN.
THANK YOU. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
MATT CRIMMINS HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ABOUT A
CONFERENCE OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JOHN THE PRUITT ON
BEHALF OF SE HA, AS WELL AS CRP
. PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR SP 69.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.
CHRISTINA'S CURRENT WITH THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
AND SUPPORT. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. JOHN KENNEDY WITH
THE RURAL COUNTIES. IT'S BEEN A
LONG PROCESS WITH THIS BILL, AND
WITH THE AMENDS ADOPTED IN
COMMITTEE TONIGHT, WE'RE HAPPY
TO SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SUZANNE
HUME. CLEANERS FOR KIDS STRONG
SUPPORT. NEXT. ARE THERE
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SEEN
ON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE. UH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WARD. THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR
WORKING ON THIS JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION. A SIMILAR ISSUE
HAS COME UP IN MY CITY AS WELL.
AND WE'RE THIS BILL TO BE LAW
GOING FORWARD. UM RIGHT NOW, A
CITY HAS TO FILE WITH THE COUNTY
, THE ENERGY OR THE NOTICE OF
EXEMPTION. UM IS THAT STILL A
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FILE WITH
THEM OR FIVE FILING WITH THE
STATE'S OPR CLEARINGHOUSE. DOES
THAT SATISFY THE NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS, THE FILING
REQUIREMENTS. UM IF THEY WANT TO
SHORTEN LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THEY
HAVE TO POST TO BOTH. BOTH STILL
. OKAY ALL RIGHT. GOOD TO THANK
YOU. HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
PELLERIN. JUST REALLY QUICK. UM,
THERE WAS ALWAYS CONFUSION IN
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BECAUSE IT
SAYS IN LAW THAT THE COUNTY
CLERK IT'S THESE NOTICES, BUT
IT'S ACTUALLY THE CLERK OF THE
BOARD AND I JUST THINK IT'S SOME
POINT WHILE WE'RE HERE. WE
SHOULD TRY TO FIX THAT TO MAKE
IT APPROPRIATE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT. I KNOW YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT THAT
BEFORE, BUT NOW THAT I SEE IT
HERE. I JUST WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT UP. THANK YOU. YOU
ALSO ASSEMBLY REWARD. ALL OUT ON
THAT, TOO. IF YOU'RE GOING BACK,
AND YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOME OF
THESE PROBLEMS THAT I HAD IS
THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A MAJOR CITY
THAT'S GOT A PRETTY WELL
SUBSTANTIAL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
THEY'RE ABLE TO PERFORM THE
FUNCTIONS OF A COUNTY CLERK BUT
ARE NOT OPEN UP, PERMITTED TO BE
ABLE TO DO SO. UM, I DON'T WANT
TO EXPAND OBVIOUSLY THE SCOPE OF
THIS BILL, BUT IF YOU ARE
LOOKING AROUND FOR OTHER AREAS
WITHIN THIS AREA TO IMPROVE,
HELPING MAJOR CITIES BEING ABLE
TO BE A RECIPIENT OF ENERGY AND
UM, FILINGS AS WELL COULD
EXPEDITE FILING REQUIREMENTS IN
A MAJOR CITY LIKE MINE. YEAH I'M
CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH
YOU ON THAT IN THE FUTURE
WITHOUT A DOUBT. OKAY ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. UM
SO WE HAVE A MOTION IN THIS
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. UM, SECRETARY,
PLEASE TAKE THE RULE. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. REBUS RIVAS I
FLORA ADDIS! ADDIS I. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN, I HOOVER HOOVER. I
MATHIS MATHIS. I MERIT SUKI.
SUKI. I PELLERIN PAELLA AND I,
WARD WARD. I WOULD WOULD
ICEBERG. ROBERT. I. DOUBLE. HAS
10 VOTES ARE WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBER. NEXT SB 7
51 BY A SENATOR PADILLA. DID I
WAIT IS THAT SP 6 19. OR ITS
DISCRETION, MADAME CHAIR. I HAVE
BOTH SO, HOWEVER, YOU'D LIKE TO
TAKE THEM. I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT
WHICH I I'LL TAKE 7 51. IF
THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL START WITH
SOME 51. THANK YOU, MADAM. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. GOOD EVENING.
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. YOU
SHOULD BE SERVING COFFEE IN THE
AUDIENCE. I'M JUST SAYING, UM AS
THE YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
WELL KNOW MATTERS OF SOLID WASTE
HANDLING AND RETRIEVAL ARE
ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH
AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CONCERN. THEY ARE TYPICALLY
ENABLED THROUGH PUBLIC CONTRACTS
WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES, SPECIAL
DISTRICTS, COUNTIES AND CITIES
WITH PROVIDERS EITHER SINGULAR
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS OR MULTIPLE
CONTRACTS BASED UPON A
CONSISTENT SET OF STANDARDS. SB
7 51 6 TO ADDRESS A LITTLE KNOWN
BUT VERY REAL RESIDUAL PROVISION
THAT IS OFTEN FOUND IN THESE
PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR WASTE
HAULING SERVICES, WHICH EQUATES
A LABOR DISPUTE, WORK, SLOWDOWN
, STOPPAGE OR STRIKE WITH FORCE
MAJEURE IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE
, BASICALLY AN ACT OF GOD THAT
IS COMPLETELY UNFORESEEN AND
UNCONTROLLABLE. AH IT IS OUR
VIEW AND THE SUPPORTERS VIEW
THAT THIS IS NOT IN FACT THE
CASE AND IT HAS A VERY
DELETERIOUS IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
BECAUSE, MATERIALLY, WHAT IT
DOES IS GO BEYOND THE NORMAL
PROVISION IN A CONTRACT FOR THE
SERVICES THAT THE PARTIES
TYPICALLY CONCLUDE TOGETHER TO
PROVIDE FOR REMEDIES IN CASES OF
STOPPAGE OR SLOWDOWN OF WORK.
INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS THE PUBLIC
AGENCY OR UM PUTS A CHILLING
EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC AGENCIES
ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE PROVISION
OF THE CONTRACT BY EQUATING A
WORK STOPPAGE. SLOW DOWN OR
STRIKE WITH FORCE MAJEURE
BASICALLY PARALYZES THE PUBLIC
ENTITY. THIS IS ACTUALLY BEEN
SEEN IN THE REAL WORLD VERY
RECENTLY IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGION LESS THAN A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO, WHERE, IN FACT THERE
WAS A LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE
SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND HAULING
SERVICES. UM THIS RESULTED IN,
UM LITERALLY, UM, PUBLIC WASTE
AND TRASH BEING PILED UP IN
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACE
IS PROPOSING A TREMENDOUS, UH,
THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE 7 51 WITH ELIMINATE
THAT LANGUAGE FROM BEING, UH,
PROVIDED IN THESE PUBLIC
CONTRACTS. IT ALSO HAS SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS. THAT ADDRESS AFTER
THE FACT CREDITS OR REFUNDS BY
CONSUMERS, UM, AS WELL AS
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. MY ELITE
WITNESS WENT HOME A LONG TIME
AGO, SO I THINK IT'S JUST ME AND
FOLLOWING ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
, WHICH I HOPE I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, MADAM
CHAIR HMM. THANK YOU ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
. I THINK YOU HAVE ONE. JEFF
NEALE, REPRESENTING THE TRUTH
CITY OF TULA VISTA AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU NEXT, ANY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE JOHN
MOFFITT. ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING
LESS POSITION ON THE BILL. WE'VE
HAD ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
APPRECIATE THOSE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND HOPING THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE THOSE AND KIND OF
BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION HERE
IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE TO
ISSUES WITH THE BILL FIRST, UM
THE TIMING ON THE MANDATE OF
WHEN THE FORCE MAJEURE WOULD
COME OUT AND THE NEW PROVISIONS
WOULD GO INTO THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT. THE BILL REQUIRES
THAT TO OCCUR EITHER WHEN THE
CONTRACT IS ENTERED INTO WHEN
IT'S BRAND NEW, NO ISSUES THERE.
UM OR AMENDED IN OUR CONCERN
WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGES. WHAT
EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? MANY
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS HAVE
PRICING SHEETS THAT ARE ADOPTED
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IS THAT AN
AMENDMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
TRIGGERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL? UM WE'VE KIND OF GONE BACK
AND FORTH ON SOME. SOME CONCEPTS
. THERE ARE PREFERENCE WOULD BE
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
ARE TRIGGERED WHEN EITHER WHEN
THE AGREEMENT IS NEW OR RENEWED.
IT'S AT THAT RENEWAL PERIOD WHEN
A LOT OF THE LARGER PORTIONS THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE WASTE
HAULER WILL SIT DOWN AND SAY OK
, IS THIS WORKING? IS THIS NOT
WORKING, YOU'LL SEE SOME MAJOR
CHANGES MADE TO THE TO THE
AGREEMENT. AT THAT TIME. WE
THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TIME
TO TRIGGER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL. SECOND PART OF THE BILL
HAS FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT
NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON A GOING
FORWARD BASIS IN THE AH IN THE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RELATED TO
CONSUMERS, REFUNDS, ETCETERA,
ETCETERA. WE DON'T HAVE ANY
ISSUES WITH THOSE PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL, BUT WE DO THINK ONE
NEEDS TO BE ADDED. WE THINK
THERE NEEDS TO BE A MANDATE THAT
THE HAULER AND THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT NEED TO COME UP WITH
AN ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE PLAN
AND AGREEMENT. WHEN A STRIKE
OCCURS. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IF
YOU'RE NOTIFIED OF A STRIKE ONE
DAY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE OUT
PERFORMING THE CONTRACT AS
AGREED TO RUNNING ALL OF THE
ROUTES, PICKING EVERYTHING UP
THE VERY NEXT DAY, IT TAKES SOME
TIME TO GET ALTERNATIVE WORKERS
AND OTHERS IN TO COVER THOSE
ROUTES. AND SO, UM THE BILL, AS
IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, DOESN'T
HAVE A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE HOLLER
TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE
PERFORMANCE PLAN, MEANING THAT
IF THERE'S A STRIKE AND YOU'RE
NOT PICKING UP THE NEXT DAY,
YOU'RE SUBJECT TO FINES AND
PENALTIES UNDER THE EXISTING
AGREEMENT, AND SO WE JUST LIKE
TO SEE ONE PROVISION ADDED THERE
TO REQUIRE THAT THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ENTITY AND THE HAULER
COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE
PERFORMANCE PLAN THAT THEY
AGREED TO BEFORE ANY FINES OR
PENALTIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
ARE ARE LEVIED AGAINST THE
HAULER FOR NOT PERFORMING THE
AGREEMENT. AS IT'S AS AS IT WAS
AGREED TO THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
DAVID KRIEGER FOR WASTE
CONNECTIONS ALIGNED WITH MR
MARCUS COMMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING TO REMEMBER STEPHANIE
MORAL HERE ON BEHALF OF RICK
OLOGY RECALLED. YOU DOES NOT
HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION ON THE
BILL. BUT WE'VE BEEN HAVING GOOD
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR
AND HIS STAFF AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH
SOME OF OUR REMAINING ISSUES.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AWARD. THANKS I
WANT TO THANK MY SENATOR FOR
WORKING ON THIS AND HAD CHANCE
TO KIND OF REVIEW SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION'S POINTS TECHNICAL
THAT I THINK THAT THEY ARE
WONDERED IF YOU HAD ANY THOUGHTS
FIRST ON. YOU KNOW WHY CHOOSING
TO LOOK AT A AMENDMENT. TO A
CONTRACT PERIOD, WHICH COULD
HAPPEN AT ANY TIME FOR ANY
REASON, AS OPPOSED TO THE
RENEWAL AND THAT THERE'S ANY
FLEXIBILITY IN THE LANGUAGE THAT
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THERE. UM
MADAM CHAIR AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. HE ANSWERS. YES,
THERE'S BEEN DIALOGUE, AND I
THINK WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR IN
THAT, UM, SORT OF INTERACTION
THAT THE INTENT HERE WITH
RESPECT TO AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
WOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS ARE
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN
OTHER WORDS, WHEN THERE'S A
MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO LOOK
AT THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF THE
CONTRACT THAT WOULD ALSO BE AN
APPROPRIATE TIME. IN OUR VIEW TO
LOOK AT THE SUBSTANTIVE
PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT, IF,
IN FACT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING
REOPENED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE
THE INTENT AND WE HAVE. WE HAVE
SIGNALED THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING
WITH RESPECT TO REQUIRING A AN
ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE PLAN, I
WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THIS
IS, UM NOT SOMETHING IN OUR VIEW
THAT NEEDS TO BE MANDATED, BUT
WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT ALONG WITH
THE OTHER PROVISIONS ON NOTICE
AND ON REFUND OR CREDIT BECAUSE
TYPICALLY, THE POINT OF THE BILL
IS SUCH THAT TYPICALLY, THESE
PROVISIONS ALREADY ARE IN THESE
EITHER EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS OR DISTRIBUTED
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS
FOR AGREEING ON LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES ON A PROCESS FOR DEALING
WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PROVISION OF
SERVICE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, A
SLOW DOWN AND WORK THOSE ARE
TYPICALLY PROVIDED. THE POINT OF
THE BILL IS THAT IN ADDITION TO
THOSE TYPICAL PROVISIONS, WHICH
ARE LEFT TO THE PARTIES TO
CONCLUDE AND NOT MANDATED OR
PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE, UM
HAVING THE FORCE MAJEURE
LANGUAGE BE ALLOWED IN A PUBLIC
CONTRACT, THEN RENDERS ALL THOSE
OTHER AGREEMENTS SORT OF MOVED.
BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE
PLANS YOU WANT IN THE STATUTE,
BUT IF THEY CAN INVOKE, UH, WORK
, SLOWDOWN OR STRIKE AS AN ACT
OF GOD, IT BASICALLY GIVES THE
HAULER OR THE PROVIDERS, SOME
SHIELDING TO PERFORM UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES AND MOST MOST
GENERAL COUNSELS OR CITY
ATTORNEYS ARE LOATHE TO EVEN TRY
TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT IN THOSE
SITUATIONS, SO THAT'S THE POINT
OF THE BILL. I WOULD SAY WE ARE
WORKING. FOR THE RECORD WE DID
RECEIVE SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE
FROM THE OPPOSITION. WE DID, IN
FACT, RESPOND TO THAT LANGUAGE
WITH SOME TWEAKS. WE HAD NOT
HEARD BACK, BUT I WOULD BE IN
AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL CONTINUE
THAT DIALOGUE TO SORT OF FINE
TUNE THIS, BUT I WANTED TO, UM,
TO CLARIFY THAT THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR RAISING THE SECOND
POINT AS WELL. I'D LOVE TO SEE
IF THIS WAS FORWARD TO THE
FLOOR. ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE
ABLE TO KIND OF WORK ON THESE
ISSUES BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
WHERE THE IMPLEMENTATION IS ON
THIS BILL, AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT THINGS ARE OUT OF THEIR
CONTROL, UM, THAT AN ALTERNATIVE
PLAN WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP THAT
THAT THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGING.
UM AND THEN ON TO YOUR FIRST
POINT. YOU KNOW WHAT UNDER, I
GUESS. THE LAW OR EVEN UNDER
THIS SECTION. WHO DETERMINES
WHAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT THE
FIRST TIME I WOULD SPEAK TO THE
INTENT THAT IT BE TO THE PRIMARY
PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT. NOT
UH, THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, A
MINOR CHANGE TO WORD CHOICE. I
MEAN, SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE
A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE ON
THE PERFORMANCE AND
CONSIDERATION PROVIDED FOR BY
THE PARTIES, AND I THINK THAT AS
WE GO FORWARD, WE CAN CLARIFY
THAT IN LANGUAGES WHAT MAY
CONSTITUTE. THE PARTIES CAN
AGREE. I THINK THE STAT THE
STATE CAN PRESCRIBE, PERHAPS
THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE SUCH A
PLAN OR THAT THE PROVISIONS
WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF A
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT AND WE CAN
DEFINE THAT TYPICALLY, AND I
KNOW THAT IT'S DEFINED IN MANY
PLACES AND EVEN REFERENCING
SOMETHING IF IT'S ALREADY TO
FIND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR
CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. REMEMBER, REMEMBER WHAT
YEAH, JUST A QUICK QUICK
QUESTION. COMMENT I MEAN, THIS
IS AN INTERESTING, INTERESTING
DISCUSSION. BUT I'M CURIOUS TO
THE OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, YOU
SAID, WELL, WE DON'T WE DON'T
THINK WE CAN BE IN A POSITION TO
HEAR ABOUT. NO THERE'S A STRIKE
ONE DAY AND BE ABLE TO SERVICE
THE NEXT DAY. IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S
A SNEAK ATTACK. I MEAN, YOU KIND
OF KNOW THERE'S PROBLEMS
NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE THERE IS A
STRIKE. SO UM AND SO I
UNDERSTAND 90 WANTING TO INCUR
PENALTIES AND SUCH, BUT YOU'RE
YOU SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF
THINGS AREN'T GOING WELL. SO.
HELP ME. YEAH. ARE YOU LOOKING
FOR? IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, AND I
THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF NUMBER
OF DRIVERS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, AS
YOU NOTED, YES, YOU KNOW,
SOMETIMES THESE THINGS AS THEY
HAPPEN, IT'S SLOW. IT'S NOT, YOU
KNOW, IT'S NOT SURPRISING. BUT
AS PART OF THE PERFORMANCE OF
THESE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. WE
ARE EXPECTED TO PICK UP, YOU
KNOW, RECYCLING ON THESE DAYS
FROM THESE NEIGHBORHOODS
ORGANICS ON THESE DAYS FROM
THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE THESE DAYS. THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS BUSINESS IS, YOU
KNOW, INTERMINGLED IN THERE,
TOO. AND SO WHEN IF YOU DO HAVE
A STRIKE SITUATION OCCURRING
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T PICK
UP ANYTHING THE NEXT DAY. BUT
IT'S A MATTER OF OKAY. HOW DO WE
GET DRIVERS FROM OTHER AREAS?
HOW WE BRING? HOW DO WE IT TAKES
TIME TO BRING IN PERSONNEL WHEN
THAT ACTUALLY OCCURS TO BE ABLE
TO GET UP TO SPEED, YOU'RE
GENERALLY NOT GOING TO REPLACE
ONE FOR ONE, SO YOU NEED AN
ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT'S WORKED
OUT WITH THE JURISDICTION. WHERE
YOU SAY OKAY. IT'S YOU KNOW,
WE'RE GONNA GET EVERYTHING
PICKED UP. IT'S GOING TO BE ON A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT SCHEDULE
AND YOU KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE
SOME DELAY HERE JUST BECAUSE YOU
KNOW WE'RE LOSING 200 FOLKS, AND
WE CAN REPLACE THEM IMMEDIATELY
OR WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DAYS WITH 50. WE HAD THIS
SITUATION. YOU KNOW, WE WASTE
MANAGEMENT. WE HAD A STRIKE
ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO OVER IN THE
CENTRAL COAST AREA. WE YOU KNOW,
WE WERE OUT THERE PICKING UP TWO
DAYS AFTER WE HAD WE WERE FULLY
UP TO SPEED YOU KNOW, AND HAD
EVERYTHING PICKED UP WITHIN 5 TO
7 DAYS AND THE STRIKE WAS OVER
NINE. AND SO YOU KNOW, THE
DIFFERENT COMPANIES HANDLE THESE
THINGS DIFFERENT WAYS. UM AND
YOU KNOW TO THE TO THE SENATORS
EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT THE PLAN
AND THEN FORCE MAJEURE. I THINK
HOW I ENVISION OR HOW. HOW I
READ THE STRUCTURE OF THE BILL
IS WHEN THIS THING COMES OUT OF
THE CONTRACT. THESE THINGS HAVE
TO GO INTO IT. AND SO THAT'S WHY
WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT
NOW. YEAH WE'RE GONNA HAVE
CONTRACTS OUT THERE THAT HAVE
ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE PLANS
ALREADY IN THEM. BUT THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT CONTRACTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND I
DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY WITH
CERTAINTY THAT EVERY CONTRACT
HAS ONE OF THOSE PLANS. SO WE DO
THINK IS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT IF THERE IS A CONTRACT
WHERE FORCE MAJEURE IS COMING
OUT, WHICH IS WHAT FOR SOME
FOLKS WOULD USE IN THE PAST TO
GET A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM
ON THE PERFORMANCE THAT YOU KNOW
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME
PERFORMANCE PLAN AGREED TO WITH
THE LOCAL JURISDICTION BEFORE SO
FORCED MEASURE COMES OUT
ALTERNATIVE COMES IN AND
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE PLAN IS
GOING TO BE IF A STRIKE DOES
OCCUR. OKAY? ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BIRTH. EXCUSE ME, SO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I THINK
IT'S A GOOD ONE AND WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT. UM ON THE FIRST
POINT. OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THAT
MAKES SENSE. SOUNDS LIKE YOU
GUYS ARE CLOSE TO DEFINING UH,
WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT KINDS OF
CHANGES TO A CONTRACT WILL
TRIGGER THIS ON THE SECOND ONE.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHETHER OR
NOT SOME OF THE LABOR SUPPORTERS
WHETHER YOU'VE HAD ANY
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LABOR
SUPPORTERS ABOUT THIS
ALTERNATIVE PLAN. MHM TYPICALLY
, YES, AND THEY'RE AWARE THAT
YOU KNOW, ALREADY IN MANY, AS IS
THE CASE FOR THE EXAMPLE OF THE
CASE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
, AND WITH THE SAME HAULER AND
PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO IN RECENT TIMES, THERE
WERE EXISTING PROVISIONS WITH
WASTE HAULERS WHO HAD, UM
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUPS
THAT WERE PART OF THEIR
WORKFORCE, AND THEY WERE ALREADY
PROVISIONS IN EXISTENCE IN THOSE
AGREEMENTS. AH THAT ADDRESSED
THIS SORT OF SCENARIO TO SOME
DEGREE, UM, IN THE CASE THAT I
REFERRED TO THAT I HAD A FRONT
ROW SEAT TO SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT THE OPPOSITION ARTICULATED
AND YOU KNOW, JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN
, AND THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE
OF THAT OTHER PROBLEMATIC
LANGUAGE THAT WAS THEN RELIED
UPON IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE ARE
COMPLETELY OPEN TO REFINING THAT
AND LOOKING AT THAT AND WORKING
WITH ALL PARTIES SUPPORTING
OPPOSITION ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD
LOOK LIKE I WANT TO CREATE ANY
NEW UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
LOOKING AT AN INTERIM
PERFORMANCE PLAN, LABOR OR
OTHERWISE, BUT I THINK ALL OF US
AGREE THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT
SCENARIO AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE
THE PARTIES TO CONCLUDE THAT
GREAT. THANK YOU APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU NEXT, SO WE DON'T HAVE
EMOTION. DOES ANYONE OKAY.
MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SPUR
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WHAT
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS. RIVAS RIVAS
FLORA ADDIS THIS GUY FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER. HOOVER NO.
MATH IS MATH IS NO MERIT. SUKI.
SUKI, I PELLERIN PAELLA AND I
WARD WARD. I WOULD. WOULD
EISENBERG ZYBERK? AYE. WHO HAS
EIGHT VOLTS. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBER. UM NEXT
IS SB 6 19, ALSO BY SENATOR
PADILLA EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE
BILL. HELLO? HELLO. OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. I LIKE
THAT. I LOVE BIPARTISAN. I THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M ALSO VERY
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 619. I'LL
TRY TO GIVE THE ABBREVIATED
VERSION BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S
LATE. BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS LED THE
NATION IN SETTING AGGRESSIVE GHG
REDUCTION GOALS. CONVERSION
GOALS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY. MINOR
DETAIL WITH THIS, OUR ENERGY
GRID IS AGING AND DOESN'T HAVE
THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE OR EVEN
MEET THE GOALS THAT WE HAVE SET
FOR OURSELVES. AH AND THE
TYPICAL TIME OF REGULATORY
APPROVAL FROM THE CALIFORNIA PUC
, WHICH DOES DO GREAT WORK AND
WORKS VERY HARD WITH RESPECT TO
NEW, SUBSTANTIAL TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE AVERAGES OVER A
DECADE. A COUPLE OF CYCLES AGO,
THIS LEGISLATURE ENACTED A B 205
WHICH WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL AND
INTERCONNECTION TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE, PROVIDED AN
ALTERNATIVE PATH FOR THOSE TYPES
OF PROJECTS THAT MET CERTAIN SB
100 QUALIFICATIONS SO THAT THEY
COULD MAKE A FILING WITH THE C
E. C. MY BILL, SB 619 WOULD
CREATE AN EVEN WIDER ALTERNATIVE
LANE FOR SIMILARLY QUALIFIED
PROJECTS BUT WOULD INCLUDE IN
THAT DEFINITION, BROADER, HIGHER
LOAD TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
IN GENERAL AND WITH SOME VERY
SPECIFIC PROVISION WOULD ALLOW
AN IOU, UM TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION BOTH TO THE PUC AND
TO THE C E C, BUT THE LEAD SEQUA
DETERMINATIONS WOULD BE EXECUTED
BY C. E C. UNDER SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS REQUIRING SPECIFIC
ACTIONS TO DEAL WITH MITIGATING
IMPACTS TO UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. IT WOULD ALLOW THEM
TO ALSO OPT INTO THIS PROCESS
AND HAVE IT SATISFY THOSE
DETERMINATIONS TO BE CLEAR THIS
PROCESS WITH THE CEO WOULD NOT
IN ANY WAY DIMINISHED THE
EXISTING AUTHORITY OF THE PUC.
TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS
AROUND NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE
OR TO SET RATES. THIS IS SIMPLY
PROVIDING ANOTHER WAY TO
EXPEDITE OUR ABILITY TO GET
TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
APPROVED AND ENTITLED, AND WE
HOPE BUILT AND I THINK THAT'S
THE SIMPLEST WAY I COULD PUT IT
HERE AND WITH ME IS MARK JOSEPH
, WITH THE COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MARK JOSEPH FOR THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY
EMPLOYEES. SB 4 20 WAS ABOUT THE
MEDIUM SIZED PROJECTS. THIS BILL
IS ABOUT THE BIG DEAL.
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT NOW
GET AND DESERVE TO GET A FULLY
IR. AND A COMPLETE SECRET
REVIEW. THIS IS TRANSMISSION
THAT WE MUST HAVE TO MEET OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. UNDER THIS BILL.
THESE PROJECTS WHICH CONTINUE TO
GET EXACTLY THE SAME SEQUEL
REVIEW AS BEFORE. THE ONLY THING
THAT CHANGES IS WHICH AGENCY
PREPARES THE E I. R. THE WAY
THINGS WORK NOW UTILITY WE'LL
FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE PUC
FOR A PERMIT. THE PUC EVALUATES
THE NEED THE COST AND SEVERAL
OTHER FACTORS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO GRANT THAT PERMIT. IT
ALSO PREPARES AN EI ARE
EVALUATING THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT WHEN THE
PUC PREPARES IN THE IR CAN TAKE
234 YEARS. MEANWHILE THE REST OF
THE PSC'S EVALUATION THE NON
SEQUITUR EVALUATION MAY TAKE 12
MONTHS OR A LITTLE MORE. AND
WE'VE SEEN THAT IT MAY TAKE A
LONG TIME BEFORE THE VIRUS FART
FINISHED. THIS BILL WOULD
INSTEAD GIVE THE UTILITY THE
OPTION TO USE THE ENERGY
COMMISSION'S 82 05 PROCESS.
WHERE THE ENERGY COMMISSION
WOULD PREPARE THE E I. R IN NINE
MONTHS AND IN PARALLEL WITH THE
BUCS NORMAL PROCESS. THEN THE
ENERGY COMMISSION WOULD SEND THE
IR OVER THE BèC. THIS IS THE WAY
WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE HERE IS
THE ENERGY COMMISSION IS REALLY
GOOD AT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF
ENERGY PROJECTS. AND WE SHOULD
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS DECADES OF
EXPERIENCE DOING THAT. THIS WAY,
THE PUC CAN ISSUE ITS FINAL
DECISION AS SOON AS IT FINISHES
THE NON SEQUEL REVIEW. THIS
COULD SAVE SEVERAL YEARS OVERALL
AND GETTING THESE NEEDED BIG BIG
DEAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECTS
APPROVED AGAIN. IT'S JUST NOT
CHANGE THE SCOPE OF THE SECRET
REVIEW AT ALL. IT JUST CHANGES
THE VENUE. PRAGMATIC BILL THAT
WILL HELP GET NEEDED
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS BUILT
YEARS SOONER. THANK YOU WHEN YOU
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. ADAM
SMITH, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON STRONG SUPPORT. IS HE
STILL ON BEHALF? ADVANCED
ENERGY, UNITED AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. VENICE IS 10 ON
BEHALF OF CLEANER TASK FORCE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. BRADY VAN
ENGLAND, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HERE AND SUPPORT. CARA
MARTINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LARGE
SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION AND
AMERICAN CLEAN POWER AND
SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
CAROL VAN SANT 1000 GRANDMOTHERS
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS IN
SUPPORT AND ALSO 3 50. VENTURA
COUNTY CLIMATE UP IN SUPPORT.
NEXT, ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION SEEN IN QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WOULD THANK
YOU. UM APPRECIATE THAT. THIS IS
THIS WILL SPEED UP THE
TRANSMISSION PIECE OF THAT WHICH
IS, UM, WE KNOW AS A 7 TO 10
YEAR PROCESS, SO DOES THE C E C.
CURRENTLY DO THIS NOW, AS FAR AS
OR DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
CERTIFY THESE THESE SECRET
DOCUMENTS OR IS OR IS THIS A NEW
TASK? WE'RE ASKING THE TO DO.
THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF THE
TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT CAN
QUALIFY FOR AN OPT IN PROCESS
THAT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER A B
205. SO IT HAS EXISTED. THE
FRAMEWORK EXISTS, BUT IT HAS,
UM, IT IS NOT WHERE EXPANDING
WHAT THE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WOULD
BE. THAT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE OPT IN DUAL FILING PROCESS.
I WOULD JUST SAY I DID IN TERMS
OF EXPERTISE. THE ENERGY
COMMISSION HAS BEEN EVALUATING
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS AS PART OF
ITS REVIEW OF GENERATION
PROJECTS FOR MANY, MANY DECADES
, SO IT KNOWS WHAT TO DO WITH
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. AND THIS
GIVES IT A PATH FOR A
TRANSMISSION ONLY PROJECT TO OPT
IN. THAT DIDN'T QUITE ANSWER.
THE QUESTION, THOUGH, IS THIS IS
THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE
THE ABILITY TO DO THIS? ARE WE
THE ACTUALLY IS THIS SOMETHING
YOU SAID YOU MENTIONED 20505 WAS
A BUDGET BILL. SO IT WASN'T
REALLY DEBATED MUCH. UM, IT KIND
OF CAME IN AS A BUDGET BILL, AND
AS SUCH LATE. SO WHAT? I'M
SIMPLE AND I'M SUPPORTED THE
BILL. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND PROCESS HERE AND WITH
BECAUSE WE'VE ASKED, WE'RE
ASKING THE CDC TO DO A LOT OF
NEW THINGS. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO
BE HELPING US WITH GAS PRICES
AND ALL THE WHOLE LOT OF OTHER
THINGS, AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE
SURE IF WE'RE GIVING THEM THIS
AUTHORITY. THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
GOING TO SAVE TIME BECAUSE THEY
ACTUALLY HAVE THE PEOPLE TO DO
THIS AND SPEED THE PROCESS UP.
SO THAT'S THAT'S THE GIST OF
WHERE I'M GOING. I'LL GIVE YOU
THE VERY PRAGMATIC ANSWER. THE
ENERGY COMMISSION HAS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRM
THAT THEY USE FOR MANY OF THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS. UH, UM,
WHICH HAS AN ANNUAL CONTRACT?
THERE THERE THEY ARE. THE
FLEXIBLE ADDITIONAL STAFFING.
THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE ENERGY
COMMISSION ALREADY. TO DO THE
EXTRA WORK THAT WE ARE GIVING
THEM. ALRIGHT, GREAT. THANK YOU.
MURATSUCHI FOLLOWING UP ON, UM
SOME MEMBER WAS QUESTIONS. I
MEAN, I WOULD IMAGINE THE PUC
CAN ALSO CONTRACT OUT WITH
CONSULTANTS. I MEAN, WHY IS IT
THAT THE ENERGY COMMISSION IS
GOING TO BE FASTER? THE ENERGY
COMMISSION HAS A LONG, LONG
HISTORY. OF DOING THIS, AND THE
ENERGY COMMISSION NOW HAS A
STATUTE AND A PROCESS AND
REGULATIONS ADAPTED TO DO THIS
IN 270 DAYS. THE PSC DOESN'T.
THE TWO AND A 70 DAYS IS FOR THE
LITIGATION. RESOLVING LITIGATION
IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S 270 DAYS
TO PREPARE THE ER. AND 270 DAYS
FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION.
ALL RIGHT. I AM. LIKE I SAID,
WITH SENATOR BECKER'S BILL, UM I
SHARE YOUR YOUR GOAL OF YOU
KNOW, UM, SPEEDING UP. THIS
PROCESS WOULD LOVE TO BE AT AS A
CO AUTHOR. TO YOUR BILL. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU,
MEMBER. AND I WOULD JUST ALSO
ADD FOR THE MEMBER THAT THIS THE
OTHER VALUE HERE IS THAT YOU
HAVE ANOTHER AVENUE THAT CAN
WORK CONCURRENTLY WITH EXISTING
AVENUES OF APPLICATIONS, SO THAT
IN ITSELF ACCELERATES OUR
CAPACITY HERE. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. UM I HAVE
JUST ONE QUESTION. I JUST WANT
TO CLARIFY THAT YOU WILL BE
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS AND
UTILITIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I NEGLECTED IN MY
OPENING STATEMENT THAT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF, AND WE WILL
BE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MATHIS, SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AT A
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
UTILITIES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE
RIVERS. I LEAVE US I FLORA.
FLORA I ADDIS. ALICE I.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I. HOOVER
HOOVER. I MATHIS MATHIS
MURATSUCHI MERITS UCI I PELLERIN
PELLERIN I WARD WARD. I WOULD
WOULD EISENBERG. MR BIRD. I SO
HAS 11 VOTES THAT'S OUT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. NEXT SENATOR GONZALEZ
S J. R TWO. THANK YOU. MOTION
AND A SECOND. THANK YOU.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, ALRIGHT.
WELL, BASICALLY, I WENT TO
MONTREAL LAST YEAR, MADAM CHAIR
AND I CAME BACK. I TALKED TO A
TRIBAL LEADER, AND THEY
DISCUSSED A NON PROLIFERATION
TREATY AND SO IT HAS THREE
TENANTS AND MORATORIUM ON FUTURE
EXPLORATION AND DRILLING AND
EQUITABLE PHASE OUT OF ALL
PRODUCTION AND IT JUST GLOBAL
TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY,
WHICH WE KNOW IS SO IMPORTANT IN
CALIFORNIA. AND WITH ME TODAY,
MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE MARGIN A
WHINY BOARD MEMBER AT PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND DR RODNEY TRIP.
TREE PARTY, A CLIMATE SCIENCE
PROFESSOR AT U C L A. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE
OF SJ R TWO. THANK YOU, MADAM.
UM CHAIR AND THE MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MARGIN
AMMONIUM, A CANCER DOCTOR AND ON
THE BOARD OF PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL POSSIBILITY. CLIMATE
CHANGE IS THE GREATEST HEALTH
THREAT WE HAVE EVER FACED. AND
FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE MAJOR
DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT
ALSO FOSSIL FUELS ARE MAJOR
SOURCE OF MANY POLLUTANTS. THIS
POLLUTANTS AFFECT OUR HEALTH IN
EVERY ASPECT. AND, UM. THEY
THESE POLLUTANTS ARE GENERATED
AT EVERY STAGE FROM EXTRACTION
TO PROCESSING TO TRANSPORT TO
BURNING THE FOSSIL FUELS. CARBON
POLLUTION IS NOT THE ONLY DEADLY
PRODUCT OF FOSSIL FUELS AND
CARBON CAPTURE IS NOT HOW WE CAN
ACTUALLY END OUR DEPENDENCE ON
FOSSIL FUELS. THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION HAS SUPPORTED THE
FOSSIL FUEL NONPROLIFERATION
TREATY BECAUSE THESE POLLUTANTS
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MANY HEALTH
THREATS. MANY HEALTH CONDITIONS,
INCLUDING UH, POOR BIRTH
OUTCOMES, LUNG DISEASE, HEART
DISEASE, AUTISM, DEMENTIA AND
CANCER. THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
HEALTH SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL
HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY TO PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO
ACTUALLY TRANSITION AWAY FROM
FOSSIL FUELS AND A STOP FOSSIL
FUEL PROCESS. CALIFORNIA THEY'RE
MORE THAN 7. MILLION PEOPLE LIVE
WITHIN A MILE OF OPERATIONAL OIL
AND GAS WELL TO STOP THE
EXPANSION OF FOSSIL FUELS. AND
MUST PHASE OUT EXISTING
OPERATIONS, STARTING WITH 3200
FT. HEALTH PROTECTIVE ZONE TO
PROTECT THE OVERBURDENED
COMMUNITIES FIRST. OUR CHILDREN
DESERVE A LIVABLE FUTURE. PLEASE
SUPPORT THE FOSSIL FUEL. NON
PARTLY FINISHED ENTREATY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M A
PERSON WHO IS FROM CALIFORNIA. I
GREW UP IN THE SAN FERNANDO
VALLEY. I WORK AT U C L A AND I
ALSO DIRECT THE CENTER FOR
DIVERSE LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE.
I'M ALSO HERE BECAUSE I'M A
PARENT WITH A FIVE MONTH OLD
SON. MY MOM AND SISTER LIVE IN
THE STATE. SEVERAL YEARS AGO,
THE RADIO DESCRIBED EXPERIENCES
OF YOUNG CHILDREN IN PARADISE,
CALIFORNIA WHO LOST THEIR HOME
THEIR PARENTS, THEIR WORLD. THEY
DIDN'T HAVE THE WORDS TO EXPRESS
AND SCHOOL AND GRIEF COUNSELING.
WE HEARD ABOUT THE HEALTH
IMPACTS. THE INSURANCE MELTDOWN
WITH PEOPLE NOT BEING INSURED,
THE BURN OF INCREASING RATES
MIND DOUBLED THIS YEAR AND
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE
NEXT THREE? WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO
SELL OUR HOME AND MOVE. HOUSE IS
NOT SELLING THE REAL ESTATE
MARKET CRASHING FARMERS LOSING
EVERYTHING TOURISM DROPPING.
BILLIONS TURNING INTO TRILLIONS
OF LOSS. FOSSIL FUELS ARE
POISONING. EVERYONE ARE MAJOR
INDUSTRIES, OUR ECONOMY AND THE
DISASTERS AND IMPACTS WILL ONLY
WORSEN IF WE FAIL TO TAKE
TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION TO PHASE
OUT FOSSIL FUELS. AS A CLIMATE
SCIENTIST, I CAN SAY THAT THE
CLIMATE EMERGENCY WAS WORSE THAN
WE'VE IMAGINED IN CALIFORNIA
ACROSS THE GLOBE. LET'S BE
CLEAR. THE EXTRACTION, REFINING
AND BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS
WHAT'S DRIVING THE CLIMATE
EMERGENCY. IT'S 86% OF
EMISSIONS. AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
IPCC, THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
AGENCY, THE UNITED NATIONS AND
THE NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
. WE HAVE TO END NEW FOSSIL FUEL
PRODUCTION. NOW WE HAVE TO PHASE
OUT EXISTING POLLUTION AND LIMIT
GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO THE PARIS
CLIMATE AGREEMENT. YET FOSSIL
FUEL PRODUCERS ARE PLANNING TO
EXTRACT MORE THAN DOUBLE THE
FOSSIL FUELS BY 2030. THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITHOUT 1.5 DEGREES C
LIMIT. THERE'S NO TIME LEFT TO
DELAY AND I COMMEND THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE
ALREADY. I URGE YOU TO ENDORSE
THE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOSSIL
FUEL NONPROLIFERATION TREATY.
PLEASE KEEP BUILDING
CALIFORNIA'S LEADERSHIP WITH
FURTHER URGENT ACTION TO STOP
NEW NEW FOSSIL FUELS IN OUR
STATE AND TO FACE THE MODEL
TOGETHER. THANK YOU. CAN
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
. GOOD EVENING. CHRISTINA'S
PARENTS FROM THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. SYRIA LAURIE ON BEHALF
OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA AND
FOSSIL FREE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. JULIA AALIYAH, WITH 3
50. SACRAMENTO STRONGLY SUPPORT
. JOAN OF LOOSE WITH 3 50
BARRIER ACTION IN SUPPORT. I'M
BAGGAGE SOME WAY OR RETIRED
NURSE REPRESENTING THE LAST
CHANCE ALLIANCE AND INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG STRONG
SUPPORT. JANET COX FOR CLIMATE
ACTION, CALIFORNIA'S SANTA CLAUS
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK. AND I'M SO HUNGRY. I
THINK I FORGOT THE LAST ONE. BUT
IT'S IMPORTANT REMINDING ME THAT
I DIDN'T BUY DINNER NEXT TIME.
HAROLD DID SAM 1000 GRANDMOTHERS
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND
SUPPORT AND 3 50. VICTORIA
COUNTY CLIMATE UP IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING. GOOD
EVENING. SUZANNE HUME, CLEANER
FOR KIDS STRONGEST SUPPORT.
CHASING FIVEFOLD PARENT OAKLAND
RESIDENT AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. NEXT, ANY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION SEE NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. SEEING THAT WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I JUST WANT TO
THANK OUR SPONSORS. AND WE KNOW
THAT LAST WEEK WE JUST
EXPERIENCED OUR HOTTEST
TEMPERATURE ON RECORD. SO FOR
THAT REASON, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. SECRETARY PLEASE
TAKE THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS
THAT THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED.
LEAVE US HIGH LUZ RIVAS I FLORA.
FLORIDA. NO, ADDIS ADDIS I.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER
HOOVER. NO. MATHIS. MATHIS NO
MERIT. SUKI SUKI, I PELLERIN.
HALLORAN I WARD WARD. I WOULD
WOULD I ZIPPER. ZIPPER? AYE. IT
HAS EIGHT VOTES. THAT IS OUT.
THANK YOU. NEXT. SENATOR STERN.
SP 2 61. I THINK I'M. I THINK
I'M THE LAST SENATOR STANDING
NOW, ONE MORE. THANK YOU FOR THE
MOTION. AND A SECOND. SER SO
JUST AT THE OUTSET, I WANT TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS REFERENCE
ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE ANALYSIS
AND I'LL KEEP THIS BRIEF. YOU
LOOKED AT A COMPANION MEASURE
EARLIER. SB 2 53. UM SB 2 61.
LOOKS FOR NOT JUST REPORTING
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BUT FOR
CLIMATE RISKS FOR BUSINESSES FOR
FOLKS DOING BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA. THIS IS A BIG DEAL.
WE KNOW WE'VE SEEN INSURANCE
COMPANIES, UH, ALL OF A SUDDEN,
SEEMINGLY OUT OF NOWHERE DECIDED
THEY CAN'T ENSURE ANYMORE. WELL,
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY OUT OF NOWHERE
. THEY WERE AWARE OF THESE
RISKS, BUT THOSE RISKS WEREN'T
REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. THE SAME
IS TRUE FOR ALL KINDS OF OTHER
COMPANIES. WE'RE TRYING TO USE
SOME TRIED AND TRUE FRAMEWORKS
THAT DON'T SAY YOU KNOW ALL
RISKS ARE CREATED EQUAL OR HAVE
A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION,
BUT USE INDUSTRY TESTED
STANDARDS THAT EVERYONE FROM
BANK OF AMERICA TO AMAZON OR
CURRENTLY DEPLOYING TO LOOK AT
HOW CLIMATE MAY AFFECT THEIR
BOTTOM LINE AND OUR POCKETBOOKS
. UM SO, UH, I'M HOPING THAT WE
CAN EARN YOUR SUPPORT HERE TODAY
. I'M HAPPY TO DIG INTO
QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO
OVER TALK THIS HANDED TO MY LEAD
WITNESSES HERE, UM, WITH SERIES
AND WITHIN VIRAL VOTERS. I'M NOT
SURE WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST.
SARAH, ALL RIGHT. JUMP JUMP ON
IN MOUNT CHAIR. GOOD EVENING.
SHARON MEMBERS. SARAH SACKS,
SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF
SERIES, A NATIONAL NONPROFIT
THAT HAS WORKED FOR DECADES WITH
INFLUENTIAL INVESTORS, MAJOR
COMPANIES AND POLICYMAKERS IN
CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THE
COUNTRY TO BUILD A MORE
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY. SERIOUS
BELIEVES CALIFORNIA HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SET A GOLD
STANDARD ON REQUIRING CLIMATE
RELATED CORPORATE RISK
DISCLOSURES WITH SP 2 61, AND
WE'RE PLEASED TO SUPPORT AND
SERVICES SPONSOR FOR THIS BILL.
THE CLIMATE CRISIS POSES
MATERIAL FINANCIAL RISK TO
COMPANIES AND INVESTORS AND
SYSTEMIC RISK OF FINANCIAL
MARKETS, AND IT REQUIRES URGENT
ACTION BY MARKET STAKEHOLDERS.
THIS IS MY LAST YEAR MORE THAN
500 INVESTORS REPRESENTING 39
TRILLION IN ASSETS UNDER
MANAGEMENT CALLED ON GOVERNMENTS
ACROSS THE WORLD TO STRENGTHEN
CLIMATE DISCLOSURE STANDARDS,
INCLUDING, INCLUDING THROUGH
MANDATORY REPORTING. THIS IS
ALSO WHY THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES
SUPPORT THE DISCLOSURE OF
CLIMATE RISK INFORMATION OR
DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION
THEMSELVES, INCLUDING 92 OF THE
100 LARGEST PUBLIC COMPANIES IN
THE WORLD, HOWEVER, THE CURRENT
STATE OF VOLUNTARY CLIMATE
DISCLOSURE IS INADEQUATE FOR
INVESTORS TO EVALUATE THE
CLIMATE RISK FACING THE
COMPANIES IN THEIR PORTFOLIO. AS
THE PHRASE GOES, YOU CAN'T
MANAGE WHAT YOU CAN'T MEASURE.
WITH CALIFORNIA STUDENTS BE THE
FOURTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE
WORLD. IT IS WELL POSITIONED TO
JOIN THE U. S SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND OVER 30
NATIONS AND REGIONS IN REQUIRING
TCF THE LINE DISCLOSURES. THIS
IS WHY SEVERAL MAJOR COMPANIES
ABOVE AND BELOW THE 500 MILLION
REVENUE THRESHOLD SUPPORT. THIS
BILL, INCLUDING MICROSOFT,
PATAGONIA ARIA COOP.
CORPORATIONS, YOU NEVADA BRAIN
COMPANY GROWTH, COLLABORATIVE
AND MORE FOR ALL THE REASONS
STATED ABOVE SERIOUS,
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE
ON THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
GOOD EVENING. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
HERE TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 2 61, WHICH IS PART OF A
PACKAGE OF BILLS THAT INCLUDES
ALSO SPT 53, WHICH YOU ALL HEARD
EARLIER, THE CLIMATE CORPORATE
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. UM IF WE
IGNORE THE MATERIAL AND
FINANCIAL RISK THAT COMES WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE
EVERYTHING TO LOSE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, INVESTORS AND
COMPANIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY
TO UNDERSTAND AND ANTICIPATE THE
RISKS AND THE OPPORTUNITIES
AHEAD OF US. THE IMPACTS OF THE
CLIMATE CRISIS CAN AND HAVE
DESTABILIZED CAPITAL MARKETS AND
ARE GOING TO LEAD TO SERIOUS
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. FOR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE
ECONOMY. IF WE DO NOT PLAN AHEAD
TO ANTICIPATE THIS RISK IT IS
THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO FOR
OUR ECONOMY, WHICH WE ALL RELY
ON. AND IT'S CRITICAL FOR THE
SUCCESS OF A BUSINESS TO
DISCLOSE THEIR CLIMATE RISK.
FAILURE TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE CAN
FACILITATE POOR INVESTMENT
DECISIONS, ASSET LOSSES AND THE
CONTINUATION OF PRACTICES THAT
LEAD TO WORSENING CLIMATE CHANGE
. SO PASSING SB 2 61, ALONG WITH
SP 253 WILL PUT CALIFORNIA IN
THE NEXT NATIONAL LEAD ON
CLIMATE ONCE AGAIN, SO WE URGE
YOUR I VOTE ON THE BILL. THANK
YOU. OH, AND I WAS ALSO ASKED TO
PASS ALONG SUPPORT FROM THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE, ANOTHER
CO SPONSOR, AS WELL AS THE
NATURAL RESOURCES, DEFENSE
COUNCIL AND SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. IS HE STILL THERE?
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. ELENA PERRY, SPEAKING
THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF GROVE
COLLABORATIVE AND E, COMMERCE,
RETAIL COMPANY AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHRISTINA'S
CARRIAGE WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. SYRIA THEORY ON BEHALF
OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA AND
FOSSIL FREE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JULIA
AALIYAH WITH 3 50, SACRAMENTO
AND 3 50 BAY AREA ACTION. THANK
YOU AND SUPPORT. JONAH BLUTH ON
BEHALF OF 3 50 HUMBLE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SHANNON COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK AND THE. THREE
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA GREEN
TEAM. THANK YOU AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
STERN FOR STICKING WITH THIS
ONE. FEW YEARS HERE. HAROLD
DANCE HAT 1000 GRANDMOTHERS FOR
THE FUTURE GENERATIONS AND
SUPPORT ALSO, UH, CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECTS AND FERNANDO
VALLEY CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT
LOS ANGELES AND 3 50 VENTURA
COUNTY. CLIMATE HUB. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING. BRAD
NOTRE PETIT, YOU CLODS CENTER
FOR DIVERSE LEADERSHIP IN
SCIENCE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
SUZANNE HUME. CLEANERS FOR KIDS
STRONG SUPPORT. NEXT, ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. BREAKEVEN
ENGLAND, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HERE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 2 61, ALONG
WITH A LARGE COALITION ABOUT
THEIR BUSINESS AND TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS, AS WELL, UM SO
OUR OPPOSITION IS REALLY KEYED
ON TWO KEY POINTS HERE. FIRST,
THE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT TURN
WITH THE LOWER THRESHOLD AS
YOU'LL SEE FROM THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. THEY NOTE THAT IT'S AT
500 MILLION AS OPPOSED TO A
BILLION, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK
SOME OF THAT SPOT WITH THAT
OTHER SPONSORS HAVE NOTED FROM
SPT 53. THAT LOWER THRESHOLD
CREATES IS WEIRD DYNAMIC WHERE
THERE'S PARENT SUBSIDIARY
COMPANIES. UM, AS YOU KNOW, $500
MILLION FOR A SUBSIDIARY IS YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF PARENT
COMPANIES THAT HAVE HOLDINGS AND
ASSETS THAT ARE WITHIN THE $500
MILLION RANGE. UM SO WOULD THESE
PARENT AND THE BILL IS SILENT ON
THIS WITH THESE PARENT COMPANIES
BE THE ONES ARE REPORTING ON
BEHALF OF THOSE SUBSIDIARIES, OR
, YOU KNOW, IN REPORTING PERHAPS
14 15 TIMES, DEPENDING ON THE
SIZE OF THE ORGANIZATION, OR IS
THAT SUBSIDIARY GOING TO BE
REPORTING IN AND OF ITSELF? THE
BILL IS SIGNED ON THAT THERE'S
NOT A LOT OF CLARITY THERE, SO
IMPLEMENTATION COULD BE
CHALLENGING BASED ON THAT NOTION
IN AND OF ITSELF. UH SEPARATELY
, UH, T. C F D IS ANOTHER, YOU
KNOW, UM, COMPONENT OF THIS BILL
THAT IT'S REALLY CENTERS ON
REQUIRING REPORTING UNDER THE
TCF D, WHICH IS ONE OF THE
CLIMATE RISK? UH SORRY. ONE OF
THE CLIMATE RISK DISCLOSURE
REGIMES THAT'S OUT THERE. UM,
LOOK, WE'RE HERE IN CALIFORNIA
AND CALIFORNIA CHAMBER COMMERCE.
WE CAN'T DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS AT
AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. BUT I DO
KNOW THE EU AND THE UK ARE
ADOPTING DIFFERENT CLIMATE
REGIMES AND DIFFERENT CLIMATE
REPORTING MECHANISMS. UM IN FACT
, I THINK THE UK ACTUALLY JUST
ADOPTED. IT'S CALLED THE CS YES.
RB REPORTING REQUIREMENT. AND WE
HAVE A LOT OF COMPANIES THAT ARE
ACTUALLY REPORTING UNDER THAT
REGIME, AND FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT REGIME IS
ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO SUBSUME
THE TCF THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS SO WE SIMPLY JUST
ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT
ACTUALLY USING REPORTING METRICS
RATHER THAN CODIFYING A, YOU
KNOW, T C F D AND STATUTE
BECAUSE ONCE YOU CLARIFY TC FDN
STATUTE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
CONTINUE REPORTING ON THAT,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR YOU
KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE GEOGRAPHICAL
AND GEOGRAPHICAL. UH YOU KNOW,
REQUIREMENTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. UM,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
HAVE TO REPORT ON THAT. BUT, YOU
KNOW T. C F D IS GOING TO BE IN
PLACE AND BE CODIFIED AND
THEY'RE GOING TO REPORT ON THAT
AS WELL, TOO. SO THERE'S A LOT
OF DUPLICATION THAT WOULD OCCUR
AND WE JUST ENCOURAGE THINKING
ABOUT THAT. THINKING ABOUT THAT.
MORE BROADLY, YOU KNOW A
HOLISTIC APPROACH RATHER THAN
LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE
IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THESE ARE
COMPANIES AS AS THE SPONSORS
HAVE SAID, THAT HAVE A GLOBAL
FOOTPRINT, SO LET'S LOOK AT THIS
FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE AND
THINK ABOUT HOW WE ACTUALLY CAN.
CHANGE THAT FROM A FROM A
BROADER PERSPECTIVE. UM
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. JOANNE BITTEN COURT
ON BEHALF OF SIFMA, THE
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND
FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION. SARAH POLO MU
WITH CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. ANA FERREIRA, WITH ONE
INSTITUTE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
HELEN DAVIS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BANKERS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD SO FAR
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THEM. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, ZACH LEARY WITH THE
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION WERE POST. BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
. I'LL START WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD. THANK
YOU, SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. IT'S ENCOURAGING THAT
WE'RE DOING BETTER ON
TRANSPARENCY AND TRYING TO
REALLY MONITOR WHAT ANY OF OUR
ACTIVITIES. OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
ARE AS IT RELATES TO, UM CLIMATE
EMISSIONS UNDER 2 53 AND HERE,
MAKING SURE THAT THAT THERE IS
AN ANALYSIS OF AN ENTITY'S RISK.
UM PERHAPS BECAUSE THE HOUR IS
LATE, AND WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF
GROUND HERE TODAY. AND THIS IS
IMPORTANT AND A LITTLE BIT
GROUNDBREAKING. I JUST WANTED TO
GET SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I
DO HAVE SOME CONFUSION. UM, WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
ESTABLISHING WHAT A CLIMATE
RELATED FINANCIAL CLIMATE REALLY
RISK IS WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS A
CLIMATE RELATED RISK? WHAT GOES
INTO THE REPORT WHO DETER AND SO
WE HEARD THERE'S DIFFERENT
STANDARDS. MAYBE THROUGH
DIFFERENT. UM UH, NATIONS THAT
ARE ALSO LOOKING AT THIS AS A
HELPFUL TOOL. HOW DO WE DECIDE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND IN THE U
. S WHAT GOES INTO THE
DEFINITION OF A CLIMATE REALLY
FINANCIAL RISK. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. I'LL TURN TO MY
SPONSORS IF THEY IF I'M IF I'M
SAYING THIS WRONG, BUT THE
COMPANY DOES IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT TO LOOK AT WHAT
MATERIAL RISKS MAY BE IMPACTING
YOUR COMPANY AND A COMPANY THAT
SELLS KETCHUP IS GOING TO HAVE
VERY DIFFERENT RISKS THAN A
COMPANY THAT SELLS SHOES. UM,
THEY'RE ALL THERE. IT'S NOT THAT
THERE'S ONE REPORTING ENTITY
SAYING, YOU KNOW, NIKE. HERE'S
WHAT FACES THE SHOES SUPPLY
CHAIN FOR NIKE, SAYING, THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RISKS HAVE TO
BE. IT'S REALLY HOW THE SEC IS
CURRENTLY DOING THEIR FRAMEWORK
, WHICH IS THAT MATERIALITY AND,
UM, WHETHER THAT THRESHOLD IS
MET. WILL REALLY BE BASED ON THE
EFFORTS OF THE COMPANY. AND I
JUST WANT TO KNOW QUICKLY THE
CHIEF PFD FRAMEWORK THAT HAS
BEEN PROPOSED THROUGH THIS BILL
WAS DEVELOPED ABOUT FIVE OR SIX
YEARS AGO BY A VARIETY OF
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THOSE
FROM THE BUSINESS WORLD AND IS
REGARDED AS THE LEADING GLOBAL
STANDARD, AND, IN FACT THE EU
AND UK REGULATIONS THAT WERE
MENTIONED ACTUALLY RELY ON TCF
DÍAS THERE MEETS THIS TCF G VERY
MUCH IS THE FRAMEWORK THAT
EVERYONE WHO IS CONSIDERING A
CLIMATE RISK DISCLOSURE
FRAMEWORK IS LOOKING TO AND
DEVELOPING. ANY SORT OF STANDARD
SO THIS BILL WOULD BUILD ON WORK
THAT WE'RE SEEING GLOBALLY IN
TERMS OF THE RISKS. THE CFT
FRAMEWORK LEAVES OUT A VARIETY
OF OPTIONS THAT UM, AND GUIDANCE
FOR HOW TO CONSIDER THESE RISKS
. TYPICALLY THEY FALL INTO TWO
MAJOR CATEGORIES. TRANSITION
RISKS, SO EMERGING REGULATIONS,
TECHNOLOGICAL, LEGAL RISKS OR
PHYSICAL RISKS SO ACUTE SUCH AS
WILDFIRES FLIED OR CHRONIC
RISKS, SO DROUGHT WATER
SHORTAGE, ETCETERA. SO IS THIS.
EITHER OR BOTH. IF I RISK TO
ACCOMPANY FOR ITS ASSETS AS IT
RELATES TO CLIMATE IMPACTS. SAY
IF I WAS A MAJOR CORPORATION AND
I WAS HEADQUARTERED IN AN AREA,
PRONE TO SEA LEVEL RISE WOULD
HAVE TO DISCLOSE TO MY
SHAREHOLDERS THAT I'VE GOT THIS
RISK. AND YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT
INTO ACCOUNT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW
YOUR INVESTMENTS IN THIS
COMPANY, OR IS IT THE RISK TO
THE CLIMATE ITSELF, SAY I'M A
COMPANY THAT PRODUCES PRODUCTS
THAT USE PALM OIL. THEREFORE WE
ARE DESTROYING RAINFORESTS AND
IMPORTING MATERIAL AND THAT
SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED. WHAT, OR IS
IT BOTH? IT'S THE FIRST SO LET'S
VERSUS RISK FROM CLIMATE. IT'S
MORE THE RISK TO THE COMPANY
ITSELF, AND THIS IS VERY MUCH A
STRONG STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR
COMPANIES TO THINK THROUGH BOTH
IN THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM
TO THINK THROUGH. YOU KNOW WHAT
CHRONIC RISKS ARE ALREADY 30
FEASTING WITHIN THE STATE OR
ACUTE AND HOW THEY CAN THINK
THROUGH THE FINANCIAL OR
PLANNING MEASURES THAT THEY NEED
TO TAKE BOTH WITHIN THE COMPANY
ITSELF, BUT WITHIN THE SUPPLY
CHAIN THAT COULD IMPACT THE
ECONOMIC STATE OF THE BUSINESS
AND SHAREHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS
, SO I AM VERY MUCH WILL BE
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TODAY. I'D BE
VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE
CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THIS
ESPECIALLY AS THE IMPLEMENTS AND
WE DEFINE THIS. SO THERE IS
CONSISTENCY BECAUSE UH, TODAY
CENTERS ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE
OVERSIGHT HERE, AND THE
POSSIBILITY FOR A PENALTY. MORE
IMPORTANTLY, YOU WANT TO GET
THIS RIGHT. YOU WANT TO BE
CONSISTENT BETWEEN ALL THE
COMPANIES AND THE INFORMATION
THAT'S PUT OUT THERE AND TO HAVE
COMPANY A BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH
THAT IT IS TRYING TO EVALUATE
WHAT ITS RISK IS. AND COMPANY B
DOES THE SAME. BUT YEAH, HAS A
DIFFERENT ANALYSIS AND COMES UP
WITH A DIFFERENT REPORT A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAT LEAVES
COMPANY A MORE RISKY MORE. UM
LESS APT, MAYBE FOR INVESTMENT
PUTS THEM AT A DISADVANTAGE,
MAYBE COMPETITIVELY FOR BUSINESS
ACTIVITY IF THEY THINK APPLES TO
APPLES, UM, THAT PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING AT THESE REPORTS AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WHO
IS ON MORE SOLID FOOTING AND IS
WORTHY OF INVESTMENT? WHETHER
IT'S BECAUSE THAT INVESTMENT IS
THERE ARE MORE MORE SOUND
FOOTING. SUSTAINABLY UM OR
THEY'RE JUST MORE. UH UH,
ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS
COMPANY AND THAT'S WHO I WANT TO
INVEST IN. I THINK THE
DEFINITIONS ARE GOING TO MATTER
IN IN THE SUCCESS OF THIS AND SO
PLEASE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT
AS WELL. I WILL DO SO. AND I
WOULD ALSO NOTE JUST ON PAGE 70
ANALYSIS THE IT'S NOT A ACTUAL
AMENDMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE.
BUT THERE'S A THERE'S A GOOD
PROVISIONS ABOUT MAYBE RB HAVING
A STRONGER ROLE IN HELPING LAY
OUT SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS, SO
THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD
CONSIDER WHERE WE'RE VERY OPEN
TO CONSIDERING GOING FORWARD,
EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T SORT OF
LAID OUT AS A STRUCTURED
AMENDMENT, UM TRYING TO GET A
RBI IN THE SORT OF DRIVERS SEAT
AND MAKING SURE THAT SAY THESE
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ARE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL AS
EVOLVING SEC STANDARDS AND THAT
WE'RE NOT SORT OF JUST CHASING
STANDARD. I THINK THAT COULD BE
HELPFUL. I'M JUST SAYING THAT AS
WE ARE, IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT
, AND WE'RE DEVELOPING THIS
PROGRAM THAT WE DO SO IN A WAY,
THAT'S VERY CLEAR FOR
CONSISTENCY THAT EVERYBODY IS
ABLE TO. PLAY ON THE SAME FIELD
. THERE WILL BE SOMETHING VERY
NEW HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
OBVIOUSLY POSSIBLY A VERY
IMPORTANT TOOL, BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS. GET
THIS RIGHT. SO THAT SOME ARE, UM
MAYBE LEADERS AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION, MAYBE DOING IT
FAITHFULLY AND RIGHTFULLY. UM,
BUT. NOT NOT RENDERING
THEMSELVES AT A DISADVANTAGE TO
OTHERS THAT ARE, UM TRYING
TRYING TO SKIRT AROUND IT, OR OR
OR OR OR DELAY AS THIS
IMPLEMENTS. REMEMBER MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU ALONG THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AWARDS LINES.
SENATOR THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL
FOR YOUR ONGOING LEADERSHIP AND
FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE, I
YOU'RE GLOBAL VISIONARY WITH
GLOBAL STATURE. AND SO WHY? WHY
WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO ALIGN?
YOUR UH YOU KNOW YOUR PROPOSAL
WITH I MEAN THE CHAMBERS TALKING
ABOUT HOW THE EU IS GOING TO
DIFFERENT DIRECTION. I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT, UH,
I SEE YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD,
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MAKE
SENSE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KIND
OF HAVE LIKE. YOU KNOW, ALIGNED
METRICS SO THAT WE CAN COMPARE
HOW CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES ARE
DOING DEALING WITH WITH THE EU
IS MEASURING AND SO FORTH, AND
SO IS THAT YOUR INTENT YES. YES,
I THINK THAT. SO LONG AS WE'RE
NOT JUST SAYING ANY STANDARD
COUNTS, AND WE'RE SORT OF SAYING
IF IT'S AN INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD. IT WORKS FOR
COMPLIANCE, OR IF IT'S ANY
FEDERAL, YOU KNOW ANY FEDERAL
STANDARD WORKS. WE WANT TO HAVE
SOME OF OUR SORT OF CALIFORNIA
QUALITY STANDARDS IN THERE.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THE AIR BOARD
ROLE IS IMPORTANT. BUT WE WANT
TO SAY IF YOU'RE B OF A AND
YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T DO
BUSINESS WITH ANYONE WHO'S NOT
DISCLOSING UNDER THE I S S B NOW
IN EUROPE. THAT SHOULD THAT
SHOULD BE WORKABLE RIGHT,
ESPECIALLY TO GET DEEPER UP
THEIR SUPPLY CHAINS AND THOSE
WHO ARE TAKING CHANCES ON SCOPE
. THREE EMISSIONS DISCLOSURE, SO
I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THE
CHAMBER. THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD
AND SORT OF TRY TO WORK THROUGH
SOME OF THOSE COMPLIANCE ISSUES
AS AS WELL AS THE PARENT. UH
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ISSUE. I
THINK THERE'S SOME SOME GOOD
GUIDANCE WITHIN NOT NECESSARILY
TCF D BUT WITHIN THE EU
FRAMEWORK EMERGING THAT MIGHT BE
SOMEWHERE TO LOOK TOO, BUT, UM,
YEAH, WE WANT TO GET THINGS
ALIGNED WITHOUT WITHOUT CALLING
OUT SO MANY STANDARDS THAT THAT
ANYTHING COULD COUNT AND THEN,
THEREFORE THAT THERE'S REALLY NO
RIGOR TO THE PROCESS, SO I THINK
IF WE CAN PUT CARBON THE
DRIVER'S SEAT AND THEN CALL OUT
SORT OF A FLEXIBLE RANGE OF
STANDARDS HERE THAT ALIGN WITH
THE C F D, I THINK WE'LL BE IN
GOOD SHAPE. OKAY AND LAST NIGHT,
I KNOW THAT THERE WERE WE'VE HAD
SEVERAL PEOPLE ASKING ABOUT, YOU
KNOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
THEIR EXPOSURE TO, UH TO ALL THE
CLIMATE RISK. IS YOUR BILL GOING
TO LIKE, SAY, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE
A STATE FARM TO LIKE ESTIMATE.
WHAT IS THEIR TOTAL CLIMATE, YOU
KNOW, LIABILITY EXPOSURE. THE
THERE WAS A VERSION OF THE BILL
LAST YEAR WHEN WORKING ON THIS
FOR A FEW YEARS NOW, BUT THERE
WAS A VERSION THAT HAD THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN IT.
BECAUSE OF ACTIONS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE DEALING
WITH THAT AND ACTUALLY A
DECISION FROM THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY ITSELF TO DO THAT
DISCLOSURE WITHOUT US ASKING, WE
WE'VE THEY'RE NOT IN THIS BILL
ANYMORE, SO IT REALLY ISN'T NON
INSURANCE. SECTOR RISK. ALRIGHT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MEMBERS PER
. THANK YOU, SENATOR. I THINK,
UM I REALLY WANNA THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS CLIMATE
SPACE. I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT,
WHICH IS, UM, I AGREE WITH THE
COMMITTEE STAFFS. COMMENTS ABOUT
NEEDING MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORTING
WITH CORPORATE AND SUBSIDIARY
ISSUES. I JUST THINK THAT'S A
REALLY COMPLICATED THING. I'M
NOT QUITE SURE THAT CARB IS THE
RIGHT ENTITY TO SORT OF FIGURE
THAT OUT. SO UM, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY SOME
OTHERS OTHER AGENCIES THAT THE
STATE BY PLANE TO BE WORKING
WITH, BUT I DO THINK THAT JUST
AN UNDERSTANDING COMPLIANCE AT
THE OUTSET THAT THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT DESERVES SOME ATTENTION. SO
THANK YOU APPRECIATE YOU SAYING
THAT AND I'M SORRY IF I CONFUSED
THINGS I MEANT FOR CARB DAVIT A
STRONGER ROLE IN IN THE
STANDARDS RIGHT AND INVESTING
THE RIGOR OF THE STANDARDS
THEMSELVES. BUT I THINK YOU'RE
RIGHT. I WAS I WASN'T SUBMITTING
THAT CARD WOULD SAY, BE THE ONE
TO DECIDE BETWEEN SUBSIDIARY OR
PARENT. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY
WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME OF
THOSE DECISIONS OURSELVES HERE
IN THE FRAMEWORK AND NOT
NECESSARILY DIFFER. THIS I DON'T
WANT THIS TO BE SUCH A CLUNKY
BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS. INDUSTRY
SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S COMING. AND
GET ON TOP OF THIS, AND SO WE
WANTED TO MAKE THIS EASY TO
COMPLY WITH. I'LL WORK ON THAT.
SO YOU KNOW, LIKE I'M JUST
WONDERING IF MAYBE SOME OF THIS
GUIDANCE IS ALREADY OUT THERE BY
LOOKING TO THE SEC. IT'S WE WISH
IT WERE. I MEAN, THAT'S ONE OF
THE BIG REASONS YOU HAVE 2 53
AND 2 61 BEFORE YOU IS THAT THE
BANKING INDUSTRY AND THE U. S
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAVE
VIGOROUSLY LOBBIED AGAINST THE S
E. C S CLIMATE DISCLOSURE RULES.
THEY'RE ACTIVELY LOBBYING
CONGRESS RIGHT NOW. THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS GOING
AFTER ANYONE DOING S G
DISCLOSURE. THEY'RE THREATENING
TO BOYCOTT COMPANIES SO IT'S
THAT SORT OF AGGRESSIVE LOBBYING
TACTIC WE'VE SEEN FROM THE
NATIONAL BANKING AND, UM
SECURITIES INDUSTRIES THAT HAVE
FORCED US INTO A POSITION WHERE
WE'VE GOTTA NOW JUMP IN BECAUSE
IT'S CAUSING SUCH UNCERTAINTY IN
THE MARKETPLACE. WE THINK IT'S
DANGEROUS TO THE BOTTOM LINE OF
YOU KNOW OUR MAJOR CORPORATIONS
AND THE REST OF THEM SO A
NATIONAL FIX WOULD BE A REALLY
GOOD THING. WE JUST WE CAN'T
AFFORD TO PLAY THE WAITING GAME.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. SOMEONE REMEMBER
HOOVER. THANK YOU, SENATOR. UM,
I MAY HAVE MISSED IT. SO
APOLOGIES, BUT THE, UH YOU KNOW
, I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE
COMMENTS BROUGHT UP I WON'T
REPEAT ANYTHING BUT UM, CURIOUS
IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO TAKE AN
AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE
COMMITTEE ADDRESSING OR IF
THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE BILL
ALREADY THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO
ADDRESSING SITUATIONS WERE
REPORTING ENTITIES ARE ALREADY
MAKING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO
COMPLY AND KIND OF WHAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE, YOU KNOW TO THE
OPPOSITION'S, UH, CONCERNS. UM
YEAH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOST
RECENT AMENDMENTS MADE NOT
SUGGESTED BY THE COMMITTEE WITH
THE LAST ROUND OF AMENDMENTS,
WHICH IS IN THE PENALTY
PROVISIONS UM, ONE OF THE KEY
FACTORS THAT THE AIR BOARD HAS
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS WHETHER
THE VIOLATOR TOOK GOOD FAITH
MEASURES TO COMPLY WITH THE
SECTION. UM SO THAT NOTION OF A
SORT OF GOOD FAITH THRESHOLD OR
, YOU KNOW, SORT OF TAKING YOUR
BEST EFFORT USING YOUR BEST
AVAILABLE DATA. I THINK WE WANT
TO ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TAKE
CHANCES LIKE THAT. WE DON'T WANT
PEOPLE TO SUBMIT, SAY,
INCOMPLETE OR VERY LIGHT OR THIN
REPORTS UNDER THIS THAT DON'T
ACTUALLY SEEK TO GO DEEPER INTO
THEIR SUPPLY CHAINS OR TAKE
CHANCES ON THAT KIND OF
EMISSIONS DISCLOSURE. WE WANT TO
ENCOURAGE THAT. SO, UM WE'RE
OPEN TO LOOKING AT. YOU KNOW HOW
TO HOW TO ENCOURAGE GOOD FAITH,
DEEP DILIGENCE ON THESE REPORTS
, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO SAY SORT
OF AH, SUBJECTIVELY. BASED ON
WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF, YOU
KNOW, I TOOK A I TOOK MY BEST
EFFORT AT IT. IF WE'RE JUST
LEAVING IT TO THE COMPANIES THAT
SORT OF SELF CERTIFY. I THINK
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING
WITH HOW EXACTLY TO DO THAT. BUT
WE WANT TO TRY TO LAND ON THAT
ISSUE. I'M I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT
IT UP AND MAYBE IN THAT
PROVISION IN THE PENALTY AREAS
IS SOMETHING WE CAN SORT OF
PIVOT FROM, RIGHT IF OKAY. SURE
AND JUST TO THE OPPOSITION. I
DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY
THOUGHTS ON THOSE. RECENT
AMENDMENTS OR I'M JUST TRYING TO
GET CLARITY ON, UM WHERE YOU
STAND ON THAT. SO AS FAR AS THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS THAT PER
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OR, UH AND
WELL, SURE, ALSO, PER YOU KNOW
THIS IDEA OF MAKING GOOD FAITH
FAITH EFFORTS. SO AND THEN THE
GOOD FAITH EFFORT COMPONENT. I
MEAN, IT'S STILL I WOULD. I
WOULD NOTE THAT THE PENALTY
PROVISION INCLUDES IT'S UP TO
$500,000 SO AND THAT'S FOR A
REPORT. SO I DON'T YOU KNOW,
LIKE THAT SEEMS I'VE NEVER SEEN
YOU KNOW, I LOOKED THROUGH
STATUTE. I LOOK QUITE A YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF
HOURS LOOKING THROUGH STUFF I
NEVER I WAS NOT ABLE TO COME UP
WITH A REPORT THAT HAD A
$500,000 PENALTY COMPONENT
ASSOCIATED WITH IT FOR NOT
FILING A REPORT IN GOOD FAITH
EFFORT OR NOT IN GOOD FAITH
EFFORT. UM SO I'M ON A GOOD
FAITH. ETHICAL EFFORT COMPONENT
. YOU KNOW, I YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD
THAT THE AUTHOR IS WILLING TO
WORK WITH US ON THAT AND THINK
ABOUT HOW HOW WE CAN DO THAT,
BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF COMING
BACK TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER
LOOKING AT. YOU KNOW HOW WE YOU
KNOW, KIND OF COMES BACK TO ONE
OF THE THINGS, THE AUTHOR NOTED,
IS THAT YOU KNOW, IN SOME STATES
LIKE IN TEXAS AND FLORIDA,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY THEY ARE
PROACTIVELY GOING OVER PEOPLE
THAT ARE FILING. YES YOU REPORTS
THERE YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE UM,
EFFECTIVELY ATTACKING BUSINESSES
THAT ARE TRYING TO DO THE EXACT
SAME THING WE'RE DOING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. SO YOU KNOW THESE
CALIFORNIA THESE COMPANIES MAY
NOT BE LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA,
BUT IF THEY DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT
OF BUSINESS HERE, THEY'RE GOING
TO BE SUBJECT TO THEM, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE
BUSINESS DECISIONS.
UNFORTUNATELY UM, WHETHER THEY
WANT TO OR NOT, YOU KNOW, LIKE
HOW THEY HOW THEY INTERACT WITH
THE STATE IN THE FUTURE IS GOING
TO COME ABOUT MORE OFTEN.
BECAUSE OF THESE KIND OF THINGS
WERE $500,000 PENALTY IS LOOKING
AT THEM IN THE BARREL. SO YOU
KNOW THAT THAT I THINK THAT IS
SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE YOU
KNOW, RATHER THAN AH! RATHER
THAN THAN MAKING THIS COMPULSORY
AND MANDATORY. I MEAN,
CALIFORNIA KIND OF COULD COULD
LEAD IN THIS SPACE AND ACTUALLY
ENCOURAGE AND CREATE THAT CARROT
THAT MOVES PEOPLE IN THIS
DIRECTION RATHER THAN TAKING A
PUNITIVE POSITION OF LIKE, YOU
KNOW, YOU WILL DO THIS.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GONNA GET A
$500,000 PENALTY. OR UP TO 500
SHOULDN'T SAY 500 BUT UP TO
$500,000 PENALTY. SO HOW DO WE
FOSTER THAT GROWTH AND THOUGHT,
YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO FOSTER
THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STARTING
TO FILE A T C OF THE REPORTS?
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU KNOW THAT
HAPPENS. BUT HOW DO YOU GET
PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY DISCLOSE THIS
IN A WAY THAT GROWS IT WITHOUT?
ACTUALLY PUNITIVELY IMPACTING
FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO DO THIS
AND THEN HAVING TO SUFFER FOR
THE CONSEQUENCES FROM FOLKS IN
TEXAS AND FLORIDA. NOT TO CALL
OUT STATES IN PARTICULAR. BUT
YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S HAPPENING
NOW. KENTUCKY THANK YOU, MR.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ATIS. SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU FOR THE RIGOROUS DISCUSSION
. UM VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. UM SO I'M GLAD
YOU'RE KICKING THE TIRES ON ALL
THIS AND WE WANT THIS TO BECOME
LAW. WE WISH WE WEREN'T IN THIS
POSITION IN CALIFORNIA TO HAVE
TO PASS THIS BILL AND THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE'RE TAKING
THIS ACTION AND THAT KENTUCKY,
TEXAS, FLORIDA AND ALL THESE
OTHER STATES WEREN'T ATTACKING
THE LARGEST BUSINESSES IN THE
WORLD FOR TRYING TO TACKLE
CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT WE FEEL LIKE
THIS IS PRO BUSINESS
LEGISLATION. UM, AND THAT
ULTIMATELY, THE PRODUCT HERE
THAT WORKS FOR UH, BIG COMPANIES
IN CALIFORNIA BEYOND SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS RIVERS
. I FLORA FLORA, NO, ADDIS.
ALICE, I. FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I
HOOVER HOOVER. NO MATHIS MATHIS
. NO MERIT. SUKI SUKI PELLERIN.
PELLERIN I AWARD. WARD I WOULD
WOULD I ZIPPER. ZIPPER? AYE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. NIGHT
LATER HAS EIGHT VOTES. THAT BILL
IS OUT. OKAY NEXT, WE ARE GOING
BACK TO SB FOUR. BY SENATOR
WIENER. JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T
GET ENOUGH OF ME BEFORE. WE'RE
BACK. I HAD SOME CIPOLLA. IT WAS
GOOD. OKAY ONE MORE HOUR WITH
SENATOR WEINER. AND THEN AND
THEN WE WILL BE OFF TO DINNER.
NÓ. DRUM IT UP. OKAY SO, UM,
JUST FOR THE TO, UH, LET THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS KNOW AS IF YOU
IN CASE YOU WEREN'T HERE WHEN HE
PRESENTED SENATOR WIENER
PRESENTED AS BEFORE. UM I
THOUGHT WE WERE CLOSE ON SOME OF
THE AMENDMENTS AND WE WANTED
MORE TIME AND SO HIM AND I AND
OTHERS. WITH INTO A ROOM AND I
BELIEVE WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT
AND I WILL LET HIM EXPLAIN.
GREAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE
TIME WE HAVE. WE HAVE, IN FACT
REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND I THINK
THEY'RE VERY SOLID. I THINK WE
WERE CLOSE BEFORE AND IT WAS A
GOOD JUST FINALIZE THEM AND THE
AMENDMENT AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
AGREEING TO AND YOU CAN MAKE
SURE I STATED CORRECTLY OR FIRST
OF ALL THAT THE BILL WILL SUNSET
ON JANUARY 1ST 30 36. SO IT'LL
BE A 12 YEAR SUNSET AND THEN 30
36. WHAT DID I SAY? 2026 30? YOU
SAID 30 36 2036 30 30. CAN WE DO
THAT? 30 30 SECONDS. I THINK THE
GOVERNMENT IT'S LATE. 20 TO
32,036. THANK YOU, UM 1136, AND
THEN IN ADDITION, WE WILL AND WE
HAVE SOME MORE WORK WE'RE GOING
TO DO ON THIS, BUT WE WILL
CHANGE RIGHT NOW. THE BILL HAS
AN EXEMPTION OR EXCLUSION FOR
SITES ADJACENT TO AN INDUSTRIAL
USE. UM AND WE'RE AND THE
COMMITTEE HAD SUGGESTED 1200 FT
BUFFER. BUT WHAT I THINK WE BOTH
AGREED IS THERE ARE A RANGE OF
INDUSTRIAL USES, SOME OF WHICH
ARE QUITE TOXIC SAY, LIKE A
CHEMICAL FACTORY, UM, SOME OF
WHICH ARE NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, SO
BESPOKE FURNITURE. ASSEMBLY'S
STORE. UM AND SO RECOGNIZING
THERE'S A RANGE. UM I THINK THE
IDEA IS THAT FOR CHEN THAT FOR
INDUSTRIAL USES THAT REQUIRE AN
AIR BOARD PERMIT WHICH ARE GOING
TO BE MORE LIKELY TO BE, UM,
GENERATING POLLUTION WHERE YOU
WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE LIVING
RIGHT ON THAT WE WILL HAVE THE
1200. FOOTBALL FOR, UM AND THEN
WE WILL, UM HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH SOME OF THE ARAB BOARDS AND
THEN POTENTIALLY PULL OUT SOME
OF THOSE USES BECAUSE YOU COULD
HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL USE THAT
REQUIRES AN AIR BOARD PERMIT,
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY NOT
PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC. AND SO
THOSE WILL, UM THE IDEA WOULD BE
TO REVERT BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE
IN THE BILL NOW MEANING YOU JUST
CAN'T BE ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL.
UM SO I THINK I HOPE THAT I
ALWAYS STATED IT CORRECTLY,
MADAM, SIR. POSSIBLE OH, YEAH,
AND THEN THERE WILL BE ACTUALLY
I'M SORRY. THERE WILL BE THREE
TIERS 1600 FT 1200 FT AND THEN
JUST DIE ON THE ADJACENT PARCEL,
DEPENDING ON HOW, UM PROBLEMATIC
. THE POLLUTION IS AGAIN RANGING
FROM THE CHEMICAL PLANT DOWN TO
THE COMPLETELY BENIGN. YOU KNOW
THE COFFEE ROASTING. PLANT OR
SOMETHING. UM SO I AM EXTREMELY
COMFORTABLE WITH WITH US UNDER
AND I'VE ALWAYS HONESTLY ON THIS
BILL WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE
INDUSTRIAL USES. I'VE ALWAYS, UM
I WISH THAT THERE ARE MORE
DEFINED CATEGORIES OF DIFFERENT
INTENSITIES AND INDUSTRIAL USE.
BUT I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY
REASONABLE. AND IN THE END, I
THINK MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MOTHERS ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO
BUILD. UH SUPER CLOSE TO, UM, A
PLANT THAT ACTUALLY COULD CAUSE
HEALTH IMPACTS, SO I'M VERY
COMFORTABLE. WITH THESE
AMENDMENTS AND AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR REACHING
AGREEMENT WITH US ON THAT. AND
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE AGREEING TO OKAY. UM
WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FRIEDMAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS THESE
ISSUES THAT I KNOW ARE IMPORTANT
TO THE CHAIR. I DO. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND
ONE THING. SO IF THE SITE ITSELF
IS IF THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR
CONTAMINATION OF THE SITE ITSELF
, FOR INSTANCE, THE SO EVEN IF
THE USE IS GONE OR LONG GONE HOW
WOULD SOMEBODY MAKE SURE THAT
THAT THAT SORT OF SITE IS TESTED
UNDER THIS BECAUSE NORMALLY THAT
WOULD BE PART OF THE SECRET
PROCESS SO THE BILL HAS ALREADY
REQUIRES A PHASE ONE AND, IF
NECESSARY, PHASE TWO ASSESSMENT
. UM AND SO THAT WE ALREADY
REQUIRE SORT OF TESTING FOR AND
THEN IT REQUIRES APPROPRIATE
MITIGATION IF SOME SORT OF
PROBLEM THAT TOXIC IS FOUND OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OKAY, SO
THAT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE
BILL FOR EVERY PROJECT. OKAY,
GREAT. THANK YOU. UH,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BIRTH. JUST
CURIOUS WHAT TO SAY HA THINKS OF
THE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS. WE STILL HAVE
QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE OIL
AND GAS. BUT FIRST WHAT. OIL AND
GAS ARE OR THAT'S AN INDUSTRIAL
USE. WELL INCONSISTENT WITH THE
3200 FT. HELP. WE. I MEAN, IT'S
AN IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL USE. I
WOULD FOR US. WE WOULD FEAR THIS
WOULD SET A PRECEDENT OF
UNDERMINING THE 3200 FT. THAT'S
LAW RIGHT NOW. NO. I DISAGREE,
BUT, UM YEAH. SOME OF OUR MERCER
CHEATING. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW.
WHY WOULD YOU DISAGREE? I MEAN,
WE JUST PASSED. WE WE ALL FOUGHT
VERY HARD, INCLUDING YOU TO
ESTABLISH THAT 1300 SETBACK. I
KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT SETBACKS.
THE SETBACK. LAW DICTATED WHERE
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DRIFT, YOU
ARE GOING TO DRILL. WHERE YOU
CAN DO IT. THIS IS IF WE WANT TO
BUILD HOUSING. WHICH, UNLIKE
DRILLING FOR OIL IS NOT A
NEGATIVE THING. WHERE CAN YOU DO
THAT? AND SO WE WE'VE WE'RE THE
IDEA IS THAT FOR ANY INDUSTRIAL
USE BECAUSE THE CHEMICAL PLANT
COULD ALSO BE. PROBLEMATIC AND
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO HAVE A UM,
DISTANCE. AND SO WE'RE TREATING
INDUSTRIAL IS ONE CATEGORY WELL,
SUBCATEGORIES OF ONE CATEGORY.
BUT WAIT, YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING
THAT IF ADJACENT LAND USE
INVOLVED OIL DRILLING OR
PRODUCTION. THAT YOUR BILL WOULD
ALLOW FOR LESS. UH SMALLER
SETBACK THAN 1300. NOBODY. YOU
I'M SORRY WHEN YOU SAID THAT,
JASON, I MEAN, WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT J. ADJACENT PARCELS. YES
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT ON
ADJACENT PARCELS EVEN UNDER THE
BILL THAT WE HAVE IN PRINT. FOR
ANY INDUSTRIAL, YOU CAN'T BE ON
AN ADJACENT PARCEL. HAS TO BE
SEPARATED, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING
IT COULD BE SEPARATED BY A LOT
MORE THAN THAT. PUTTING ASIDE
THE ADJACENT THEN IS YOUR
AMENDMENT PROPOSING A OIL
DRILLING SETBACK LESS THAN 3200
FT. IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL SETBACK
, WHICH COULD BE EITHER 1600 FT.
UM 1200, OR JUST NOT ON THE
ADJACENT PARCEL. BUT FOR ANY
KIND OF INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL. IT
WOULD HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM OF
1600. FT. OKAY, BUT BUT I'M
TALKING ABOUT OIL DRILLING OR
PRODUCTION IS YEAR. AMENDMENT
GOING TO ALLOW FOR HOUSING LESS
THAN 3200 FT FROM ANY OIL
DRILLING OR PRODUCTION, SO
PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD BE IN THE
1600 FT CATEGORY. UM I JUST
WANNA BE VERY CLEAR. THERE ARE
AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF HOUSING
BILLS. THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED BY
THE LEGISLATURE THAT HAVE ZERO
BUFFER FROM ANY INDUSTRIAL OR
ANYTHING ELSE. UM THERE'S ONLY
ONE LAW I CAN THINK OF THAT HAS
ANYTHING IN THAT CATEGORY? UM
EVERY OTHER HOUSING LAW PASSED
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT
I'M AWARE OF HAS NO BUFFER
WHATSOEVER. AND SO WE HAVE NO SO
THAT WE HAVE NOT TYPICALLY TAKEN
. WE'VE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT
WHEN YOU DECIDE WHERE YOU'RE
GOING TO DRILL FOR OIL YOU NEED
THIS. YOU NEED TO LOCATE THAT.
AWAY FROM CERTAIN USES, BUT WE
TYPICALLY HAVE NOT TAKEN THE
APPROACH. THAT YOU HAVE TO GET.
YOU CAN'T BUILD HOUSING. IN A
CERTAIN LOCATION. BUT SIR, I I'M
SURE YOU CAN APPRECIATE THIS
YEAR ASKING US TO SUPPORT A BILL
THAT'S GOING TO UNDERMINE THE
OIL DRILLING SETBACK THAT WE
JUST PASSED LAST YEAR, AND THAT
IS CURRENTLY UNDER LITIGATION
THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE
HEADLINE. I DON'T I WANT SOMEONE
CAN SAY THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT
MAKES IT TRUE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT UNDER AN INDUSTRIAL USE
HOUSING CAN BE BUILT. IN YOUR
INTERPRETATION, 1600 FT FROM OIL
DRILLING OR PRODUCTION THAT WERE
WITH PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND A PHASE TWO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IF
NEEDED, AND MITIGATION OF
NEEDED. YES. THAT SEEMS TO BE IN
CONTRADICTION TO THE BILL
AUTHORED BY SENATOR GONZALEZ. I
DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. UM IF
THEY IF I MAY BE HERE TO,
ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS
JENNIFER GONNA I'M A SENIOR
STAFF ATTORNEY COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT BEFORE IT WAS
A SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY ACTUALLY
WAS THE YOUTH PROGRAM ORGANIZER
IN WILMINGTON'S, UM SO I WANTED
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AM I
AM SURE THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
MURATSUCHI KNOWS ABOUT
MORNINGTON AND ISSUES THAT ARE
THERE. AND SO A LOT OF OUR
MEMBERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHAT
IT'S LIKE TO LIVE NEXT TO AN
OIL. WELL, EVEN IF IT'S AN OIL,
OLD OIL WELL, THEIR EMISSIONS
AND THERE ARE FACTORS THAT ARE
NEXT TO IT. SO IF WE ARE
BUILDING NEW HOUSING, WE ARE
ASKING THROUGH SUHA AND THROUGH
CB AND ARE DIFFERENT PARTNERS
WHO HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THIS IS
TO ACTUALLY HAVE A LARGER
SETBACK BECAUSE THERE ARE A
BUNCH OF HEALTH ISSUES THAT
OCCUR WHEN YOU LIVE CLOSE TO AN
OIL WELL, EVEN IF IT'S ONE THAT
HAS BEEN ALLEGEDLY CAPPED. THERE
ARE STILL EMISSIONS THAT ADMIT,
UM AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A
LIVED REALITY THAT PEOPLE GET
HEADACHES. PEOPLE FEEL SICK
OFTEN, AND THIS WAS OUR MAIN
CONCERN ABOUT WHY WE WERE
PUSHING THIS TO MAKE IT MORE
CONSISTENT OVER THE BILLS THAT
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. AND I
THINK FOR US, THAT'S THAT'S ONE
OF THE REALLY BIG ISSUES. I
MEAN, IN ADDITION TO LIVING NEAR
A FREEWAY, UM, IN ADDITION TO
TOXIC SITES AND ASKING FOR THE
PROPER REMEDIATION, BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT FOLKS WHO WERE GOING
TO BE LIVING IN 100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, THEY DESERVE HEALTHY
AND SAFE HOUSING AS WELL. UM AND
EVEN THOUGH WE NEED TO FIGURE
OUT WAYS TO PRIORITIZE THAT AND
NOT UNDERCUT THE DIFFERENT LAWS
AND PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE
CURRENTLY IN PLACE. I AGREE.
I'VE BEEN TRYING, ALL RIGHT, BUT
SUDDENLY REMEMBER PELLERIN, SO I
JUST OKAY? SO ARE YOU WILLING TO
WORK WITH THIS OPPOSITION TO TRY
TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT HERE?
BECAUSE I AGREE THAT AGAIN
BUILDING HOUSING AND PLACES THAT
ARE NOT SAFE IS JUST NOT WHAT WE
WANT TO BE DOING. WE WANT TO BE
AT THE BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE AND THRIVE
AND NOT TO GET SICK. YEAH WELL,
I'LL MENTION HERE FROM THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERSPECTIVE.
ABRAM DIAZ WITH NPH TO NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BUILDERS. I'VE HAD A LOT OF
REALLY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE FOLKS HERE HAVE
CONCERNS AND WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN
SOME AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THAT
THAT INCLUDES THE PHASE TWO
MITIGATION PIECE AS WELL. SOME
DEFINITION AROUND THE INDUSTRIAL
SIDE, WHICH OR EVEN NOW
DEVELOPING AS WELL AND HAVE HAD
A CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ABOUT IT. UM I'LL GO
BACK TO WHAT'S IN THE BOOK
CURRENTLY, WHICH IS THE
ASSESSMENTS AND THE MITIGATION,
AND THOSE ARE YOU STILL HAVE TO
STAY IN FEDERAL STANDARDS,
ENSURE ANY HOUSING WE BUILD IS
UP TO CODE AND WE ENSURING THAT
WE ALSO HAVE LOCAL OBJECTIVE
DESIGN STANDARDS. WE ARE GOING
TO ENSURE THE HOUSING IS SAFE,
AND WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY
AS MENTIONED BEFORE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDERS. WE
ARE VERY RISK ADVERSE. WE VALUE
ENORMOUSLY THE TENANTS THAT WE
HAVE IN THE PROJECT MANAGERS WHO
MAY LIVE ON SITE AND WE WILL
BUILD IN AREAS THAT ARE SAFE.
AND WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE
PROTECTIONS WILL HAVE AROUND
VULNERABLE, VULNERABLE AREAS IN
THIS BILL, AND I'M GLAD WE'RE
HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS. THERE'S
ALSO A WHOLE SWATH CALIFORNIA
WERE BE ABLE TO BUILD HOUSING
THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND FOR FOLKS
WHO ARE IN NEED, AND SO, WITH
ALL THAT, JUST BEING SAID, WE
HAVE A LOT ALREADY IN THE
MEASURES ENSURE THE HOUSES BUILT
UNDER SAFE AND AFFORDABLE MANNER
AND ON THE BUILDERS SIDE. FOLKS
ARE VERY ATTENTIVE TO THESE
ISSUES, AND I RECOGNIZE THE
HISTORY AND A LOT OF THE LEGACY
OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO DO
BETTER, AND THIS BUILDS A STEP
IN THAT DIRECTION. I FEEL VERY
CONFIDENT IN SAYING THAT I MEAN
, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS
THAT THEY'RE RAISING THAT? OH,
ABSOLUTELY. AND DO WE DO WE KNOW
I MEAN, THIS IS THIS IS
IMPACTING PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED
BY CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, RIGHT
NONPROFIT COLLEGES, NONPROFIT
SCHOOLS. DO WE KNOW IF ANY OF
THEM ARE LOCATED IN OR NEAR OIL
AND GAS PRODUCTION PLACES? YEAH
DIOCESE IN L. A CATHOLIC
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF OUR CHOICE
FELL A. THEY OWN. THEY PERMIT
LAND TO ALLEN CO DRILLING, AND
THAT'S A OIL COMPANY. THAT'S
JUST ONE AREA LIKE THEY CAN
EASILY WITH THIS LAW TODAY, IF
IT WAS TO PASS, THEY COULD PUT A
HOUSE RIGHT THERE. THAT WOULD
ALLOW IT. I THINK WITH THE WITH
THE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION
MEASURES IN THE BILL, YOU WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO PUT HOUSING IN AN
AREA THAT'S AT RISK. AND I ALSO
DON'T THINK YOU'D FIND AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BILL THERE
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT
WOULD BUILD IN A RISKY SIDE. HMM
FROM THE SAME PARCEL YOU CAN
YEAH, AND THEN IF IT'S UNDER
ADJACENT PARCEL AS WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING WITH THE SETBACKS
WE'VE SET UP HERE. WE ALSO HAVE
THAT DISTANCE BLOCKED IN THROUGH
THE LEGISLATION ITSELF.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR SORRY. YOU
KNOW, I JUST I AM. I'M HAVING
TROUBLE WITH THIS AS WELL. I
MEAN, IT'S THIS ISN'T ABOUT NOT
ALLOWING ANYTHING EVER TO BE
BUILT NEAR THESE UM, THESE OIL
SITES IT'S ABOUT BY RIGHT
DEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T GO
THROUGH A SECRET PROCESS TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AND SO I
JUST THINK IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEN ANY AFFORDABLE DEVELOPER
CAN SORT OF COME IN AND CAN CAN
DO THIS SORT OF BY, RIGHT, UM I
JUST I JUST HAVE TROUBLE WITH
SORT OF, UM SAYING THAT. IT'S A
DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR WHEN YOU
ARE. THE DRILLING COMES SECOND
VERSUS WHEN THE HOUSING COMES
SECOND, THERE'S THE SAME ISSUES
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO, UM,
IT'S JUST GET OVER THERE FOR ME
. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO AGREE
TO THE TO THE TO THE SETBACK.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MURATSUCHI. I
JUST WANT TO ADD SENATOR WIENER
THAT IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING
THAT I YOU KNOW THAT THAT I
WOULDN'T BE A VOTE FOR YOUR
BILL. ANYWAY I WOULD I WOULD
SUPPORT YOUR BILL. IF YOU TAKE
THE 3200 SETBACK BECAUSE I DID
NOT WANT TO. PASS ANY BILL THAT
THAT IS UNDERMINING, YOU KNOW
THAT KEY PART OF THE CLIMATE
PACKAGE THAT WE PASSED LAST YEAR
THAT THAT YOU AND I HAVE
FOLLOWED, YOU KNOW SO HARD FOR
AND INSPIRE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THESE THESE OTHER MITIGATIONS,
YOU KNOW, AREN'T ADDRESSING THE
HEALTH IMPACTS OF OIL DRILLING
OR PRODUCTION. THAT THAT THAT WE
KNOW, TRAVELS. I MEAN, ALL OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH STUDIES THAT
YOU AND I ARE VERY WELL OF
FAMILIAR WITH MEAN. YEAH, WHEN?
WHEN WE'RE TALKING, TALKING
ABOUT ALLOWING THIS KIND OF
HOUSING PRODUCTION BY RIGHT
WITHOUT ANY KIND OF SEQUEL. UH
PROCESS. I THINK AT THE VERY
LEAST WE SHOULD HAVE A 32 100.
WHAT SET BACK. I'M FALLING
ASLEEP. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ADDIS?
YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK I WANNA GO
. UH, CONCERN I'M HEARING HERE.
BUT AT ITS CORE. UM. I DON'T
THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD
SIT HERE. AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE
WHO ARE TELLING US THAT THEY GET
SICK AND THEN THEIR COMMUNITIES
ARE GETTING SICK. FROM BUILDINGS
THAT ARE TOO CLOSE. AND NOT MAKE
THIS CHANGE. WHEN YOU HAVE
PEOPLE ON THE DAIS THAT SAYING
I'M ALL IN IF YOU MAKE THIS
CHANGE I DON'T THINK I
UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT'S AT THE
CORE? WHAT'S AT THE CORE OF WHY
WE WOULD HAVE BY RIGHT
DEVELOPMENT? THAT COULD MAKE
PEOPLE SICK. AND THERE'S A VERY
SIMPLE WAY TO AVOID THAT. YEAH
SO FIRST OF ALL, OBVIOUSLY THE
COMMITTEES AND CONTROL HERE, AND
WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK
, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. UM WE
CAN HAVE A BROADER CONVERSATION.
OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE PEOPLE
SICK LIKE HOUSING AND STABILITY
AND HOMELESSNESS. BUT LET'S NOT
TRY TO HIDE THE BALL, THOUGH.
NO, NO, NO, I'M NOT ADDRESSED
THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION. I'M
NOT, BUT I'M JUST THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF TODAY. LIKE AH! THERE ARE
THERE OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE
PEOPLE SICK TOO? AND OBVIOUSLY,
I CARRIED THE 2500 FT SETBACK.
BILL. I THINK IT WAS 2500 WHEN
MR MATSUKI. I BELIEVE IT WAS
2500 WHEN HE DID IT. SO WE WERE
WORKING WITH 25 CARRY THAT BILL.
I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE SENATE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE WHEN
THAT BILL WENT DOWN IN FLAMES,
UH AND SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I
HAVE ABSOLUTELY WORKED ON. AND I
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS
SAYING, AND I THINK THAT GETTING
PRETTY CLEAR SIGNAL HERE. UM AND
SO IF WE COULD JUST HAVE ABOUT
TWO MINUTES, JUST STEP OUTSIDE,
WE HAD A CONVERSATION AND
AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIR. BUT
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO ARE
EXPRESSING A POINT OF VIEW. NO,
I MEAN THE 3200 FT. SETBACK OF
COURSE, IS SOMETHING I'VE ALWAYS
WANTED. I PUT IN IT AS AN
AMENDMENT. I'M TRYING TO GET
THIS BILL OUT, RIGHT? BUT UM I
FELT ALONE. RIGHT AND NOW I
DON'T WITH THE 3200 FT. UM BUT
THIS IS UP TO OUR COMMITTEE,
RIGHT? UM AND YEAH, LIKE THIS
HAS BEEN ONE OF MY PRIORITIES TO
I DON'T WANT TO UNDER LIKE I'VE
ALREADY TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THIS
IN LENGTH, RIGHT? UM AND SO
TRYING TO GET THIS BILL OUT. AND
IF THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME,
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING UM, OUR
COLLEAGUES THAT ARE ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF THAT. AND IF YOU WANT
TO TAKE SOME TIME, BUT HOW ABOUT
WE FINISH? WITH THE OTHER
MEMBERS THAT WANT TO ASK
QUESTIONS OR OKAY? YEAH REMEMBER
AWARDS? THANK YOU, MA'AM. SURE I
KNOW IT'S CAME LATE, NOT
ENCOURAGE THAT TIME AS WELL. UM
BUT WE HAD WE DISCUSSED RECENTLY
AS WELL TOO. AND I JUST WANTED
TO SEE IF YOU COULD REMIND ME OF
AND COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE
CIRCUMSTANCE AROUND, SAY, THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND 3200.
FT. YEAH THERE'S BEVERLY HILLS.
THERE'S HUNTINGTON'S BEACH SHOWS
YOUR BELINDA THERE ARE, YOU KNOW
WEALTHY CITIES THAT WILL UM. THE
EXEMPTED. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'LL BE 100% EXEMPTED, BUT
THEY WILL BE LARGELY EXEMPTED.
UH FROM THE BILL, I AM
INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE AND
INSIGHTFUL AND CAUTIOUS ABOUT
THE IMPACT THAT WE HAVE WITH
COMMITTEE COMMUNITIES, WHICH
HAVE BEEN LONG, LONG,
HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED FROM
POLLUTANTS, AND I THINK THE GOAL
AGAIN THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THAT I WAS PROUD TO SUPPORT LAST
YEAR. AH WITH THE OIL SETBACKS
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PHASING OUT THESE POLLUTING
SOURCES FROM RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS DOESN'T CHANGE THE
FACT THAT THEY ARE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY ARE ZONED
RESIDENTIAL THAT WE WANT TO
CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THEM AS
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. UM
AND I'M NERVOUS THAT WE ARE HMM.
SELLING MIGHT BE SELLING
SOMETHING IN MOTION THROUGH THIS
BILL OR THROUGH OTHER, UM AS
PRESIDENT FOR OTHER BILLS AS
WELL TO, UM, THAT ARE GOING TO
PRECLUDE A GENERATION OF
OPPORTUNITY SITES. BECAUSE THAT
HASN'T FULLY SUNSET BECAUSE
THOSE HAVEN'T FULLY YET PHASED
OUT. BUT THEY WILL. WE'RE
HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION. I
DON'T WANT TO MISS THE
OPPORTUNITY SITES THAT WE NEED
TO HAVE. AH BUILDING UP MORE,
UH, MORE HOUSING SITES FOR THEIR
ENJOYMENT FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.
80 YEARS AS AS ARE FACING OUT,
IT CAN RECONCILE THE TWO. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY
UNDERSTANDS THAT WE'RE NOT JUST
TALKING, THOUGH, ABOUT, UM
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES THAT
3200 FT. ARBITRARY SETBACK IS
GOING TO INCLUDE A LOT OF
COMMUNITIES THAT MANY FIND
PRETTY LOVELY AND PRETTY NICE.
THIS SAME SETBACK WAS AN A B
2011 LAST YEAR, A BIG BILL THAT
WAS SIGNED INTO LAW. IT'S 3200
FT IN A B 2011, SO IT'S NOT VERY
FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE THIS, BUT
THAT'S THE OAN THE ONLY ONE
LONG BEACH LONG BEACH WOULD HUGE
CHUNK OF LONG BEACH WOULD BE
TAKEN OUT TO EXCLUDED AS WELL.
ENCOURAGE THE CONVERSATION. SO
WE'RE NOT TALKING WITH THIS BILL
ABOUT PROPERTIES EVERYWHERE NEAR
OUR OIL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SPECIFICALLY PROPERTIES OWNED BY
CHURCHES THOSE PROPERTIES IN
BEVERLY HILLS. THOSE OIL RIGS
ARE NOT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES
OWNED BY CHURCHES. NOR ARE THEY
OWNED BY CHURCHES. TO MY
KNOWLEDGE. I KNOW I'M FAMILIAR
WITH MANY OF THOSE SITES. I
DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE DOESN'T
SOUND LIKE THOSE OF THE SITES
THAT ARE OWNED BY THE
ARCHDIOCESE, BUT, UM, I THINK
THAT THIS IS A I'M A CO AUTHOR
OF THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S A
GOOD BILL. I THINK IT'S A
POWERFUL BILL. I WOULD BE MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH THE SETBACK. I
THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT A
WHOLE LOT OF PROPERTIES AND UM,
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THAT,
YOU KNOW, ASKING TO NOT USE THIS
WITHOUT SEQUEL REVIEW RIGHT NEXT
TO AN ACTIVE OIL FACILITY IS NOT
UNREASONABLE. THAT'S MY
PERSPECTIVE. UM YOU KNOW, I
THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH
THE REVIEW, YOU STILL HAVE A
MISSIONS. IF IT'S AN ACTIVE IF
IT'S AN ACTIVE FACILITY, AND
IT'S PUMPING OIL AS MANY OF
THESE SIGHTS AND SOUNDS LIKE OUR
WE REALLY WANTING TO PUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT
ADJACENT TO THEM. I MEAN, I
THINK BEING 3200 FT AWAY IS NOT
AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. SO
THAT'S MY OPINION AS A AS A CO
AUTHOR OF THIS BILL.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FLORA. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. COLLEAGUES
LIKE THIS IS UM, INTERESTING.
WHAT WE GOT GOING ON HERE, SO WE
HAD A BILL IN FRONT OF US. AND
ITS ORIGINAL INTENT THAT ALL
INTENTS AND PURPOSES. WE HAVE
THE VOTES TO GET IT OUT. FOUR
HOURS AGO. THERE WAS A
CONVERSATION HAPPENED OUTSIDE.
WE BROUGHT IT BACK IN. WITH
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE AGREED ON
BY THE CHAIR AND THE AUTHOR. IS
THAT CORRECT? SO I'M GONNA MAKE
A MOTION. TO MOVE THE BILL,
WHICH WAS WHAT WAS AGREED ON BY
THE CHAIR AND THE AUTHOR AND
WHAT WAS DECIDED OUTSIDE. IT'S
TIME FOR US TO MOVE ON. THIS
BILL IS LIKE WE'VE NEGOTIATED
THIS THING AT THIS DIOCESE FOR A
LONG TIME NOW. AND I JUST THINK
LIKE IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR
YOU OUT THERE FOR THE TWO OF
YOU. THEN WHY IS IT NOT GOOD
ENOUGH TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE AND LET US VOTE ON THE
BILL THAT YOU TWO AGREED ON? NO,
I UNDERSTAND VICE CHAIR FLORA.
YOU KNOW? I'VE BEEN TRYING TO,
YOU KNOW, PUT I MEAN, IT'S IN
THE ANALYSIS THIS RIGHT AND I'VE
BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR. AH! LIKE I SAID, WHY?
WHY SHOULD WE? I MEAN
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AND WHEN I
SAY WE WHY SHOULD 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BE PLACED
WITHIN 3200 FT. OF OIL AND GAS.
I MEAN AND BUT. BUT WE JUST
VOTED OR THE COMMITTEE JUST
VOTED. I DIDN'T ON A BILL THAT
IS GOING TO CREATE MARKET RATE
HOUSING ON THE COASTAL ZONE,
WHICH MY CONSTITUENTS WILL NEVER
AFFORD, BUT IT'S OKAY FOR MY
CONSTITUENTS TO LIVE WITHIN.
THIS BUFFER ZONE. THAT'S IT.
THIS IS HARD AND I DON'T WANT TO
VOTE FOR THIS THIS WAY. I AM SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT 1600 FT. RIGHT AND
UM AND SO I JUST ASK THAT YOU
COULD RECONSIDER THAT ONE.
EVERYTHING ELSE WE YOU KNOW, WE
BOTH KIND OF WENT THE SUNSET
DATE WITH OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT
I WANTED MY EXTENSIVE LIST. UM I
FEEL THAT WE CAME. YOU KNOW, IN
AGREEMENT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S
MANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT
SHARE THAT CONCERN, TOO. YEP. SO
UM, WHAT ONE THING BEFORE I GET
TO THE BOTTOM LINE? UM,
RESPECTFULLY. THE BILL, WHICH
HAS VOTED ON DID NOT HAVE UM, A
BUFFER IN IT SO THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE. AND LIKE
I SAID THERE WAS ONLY ONE OTHER
STATE HOUSING LAW THAT HAS ANY
BUFFER. THERE ARE MANY THAT THE
EVERY OTHER ONE THAT I'M AWARE
OF, EXCEPT ONE. DON'T SO I THINK
IT'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING
THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE THAT
BUFFER. THIS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT SET. I
HAVE HEARD THAT THERE ARE AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THE DIFFERING
PERSPECTIVES ON THIS, BUT WITH
THAT SAID, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO
ME. UM WHERE CRITICAL MASS ON
THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO AND SO
AS A RESULT WILL ACCEPT THE
3200. BUFFER. AND WE WILL UM.
AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU TO
CLARIFY ON THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL
OKAY? THANK YOU. GO BACK TO
SUPPORTING THE BILL WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ALSO
IDENTIFIED BEFORE.
REMEMBER 32 WITH THE 3200. THANK
YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
THINK I ALREADY CLOSED EARLIER,
SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. I WILL SAY. I'M HAPPY TO
DO IT. I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO
COLLABORATE. I DO WANT TO SAY I
TAKE ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE
COMMENTS. THAT WERE MADE IN THIS
HEARING, WHICH I DON'T THINK
WE'RE UM WE'RE FAIR. I DON'T I
DON'T MIND POLICY DISPUTES ON
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR
DEMOCRACY, AND I NEVER TAKE THAT
PERSONALLY. BUT SOME OF THE
COMMENTS I TAKE ISSUE WITH, SO
THANK YOU. NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO, BUT WE ALL WANT TO
GO HOME, AND WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AT A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN JUST
WANT TO BE CLEAR. IT DOES
INCLUDE THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU
SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS,
PLUS UH, IN THE 3200 BUT
SETBACK. SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
PRIEBUS I FLORA FLORA. NO, ADDIS
, I FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER
. WHO WERE NOT VOTING MATHIS
MURATSUCHI. ITSUKI I PELLERIN
HELEN I AWARD WARD. I WOULD
WOULD EISENBERG. ZYBERK I THANK
YOU. CHAIR COMMITTEE AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR. IF A STATE HAS
EIGHT VOTES, THAT BILL IS OUT.
AYE. OKAY? NEXT. HE WAS
DISMISSED. WE'RE NOT WASTING
TIME. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND
ADD ON VOTES FOR THOSE MEMBERS
THAT WERE ABSENT. WE'LL START
WITH SB 48 BECKER MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS ABSENT
MEMBER RIVAS. I, REBUS I WARD
FORD I BILL HAS APRIL. HOWEVER
THE BILL HAS EIGHT VOTES THAT
PULL US OUT. NEXT. NEXT DAY SP
69 BY CORTEZ. THE MOTION IS
PASSED AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS APPS. ABSENT.
REMEMBER FLORA? SORRY, 69. I
FLORA I THAT HAS 11 HAS 11
VOTES. EBOLA'S OUT. NEXT SP 2 53
WIENER. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING. I ABSENT MEMBERS,
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I. HOOVER.
SORRY ABOUT MEMBERS. IT'S SB 2
53. HOOVER. NÓ ZABAR. ROBERT. I.
823 THAT BILL IS OUT. NEXT SP 3
53. NOW, WHERE'S 3? 51? OR IS
THAT OUT? AWESOME. SORRY 3 53
WAS ALREADY OUT. BIT TO YOUR
RIGHT. I WAS RIGHT. SP 3 53
MOTION IS DO PASS THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS. ABSENT MEMBERS
OF THE BUS. I LEAVE US AWARD
AWARD. I LOVE IT. AH! BILL HAS
NINE VOTES 11 CAN ADD LATE AT
NIGHT 11 THAT BILL IS OUT. SB 4
20 BECKER MOTION IS DUE PAST
UTILITIES AND ENERGY ABSENT
MEMBER FLORA. SB 4 24 20 FLORA I
AWARD AWARD. I HAS 11 BOOKS HAS
11 VOTES THAT WILL LIST OUT SB 4
23 WIENER MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. UM
ABSOLUTE MEMBERS, FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN. AYE. IT HAS SEVEN.
BILL HAS SEVEN VOTES THAT BILL
US OUT. SB 4 25 NEWMAN MOTION IS
DUE PAST TWO APPROPRIATIONS
ABSENT MEMBERS OF THE BUS. I
LEAVE US I FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN. I.
HOOVER HOOVER ICEBERG. ZABAR?
AYE. BECAUSE 10 BOOKS HAS 10
VOTES THAT BILL IS OUT. SP 5 68
68 NEWMAN. MOTION DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS ABSENT MEMBER
RIVAS I'VE FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HAS 11 VOTES. BILL HAS 11 VOTES
THAT GOES OUT. SB 70 FOREMAN
MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS ABSENT MEMBER
MATHIS SO IT'S 18. BILL HAS
EIGHT VOTES THAT PULL US OUT. SP
7 51 BY THE YEAR MOTION IS DUE
PAST TWO APPROPRIATIONS ABSENT
MEMBER FRIEDMAN I MEAN FLOOR.
FRIEDMAN, I FLORA. FLORA NÓ.
WHAT WOULD I OKAY? SO THAT. BILL
HAS APRIL SEVERAL IS OUT. SPC.
777 ALLEN. MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS ABSENT
MEMBER FLORA FLOOR, NOT VOTING.
THAT BILL HAS HAS EIGHT VOLTS.
THAT BILL IS OUT. UM NOT ONLY
NEED THE CONSENT, YES, CONCERNED
CONSENT. THANK CALENDAR
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I. HOOVER
HOOVER. I WARD WARD. AYE.
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS 11 VOLTS
THAT BILLOWS OUT? UM BUT BEFORE
WE ADJOURN, I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THIS IS
OUR LAST POLICY HEARING. I WANT
TO THANK, UM MY TEAM. LAWRENCE
ELIZABETH. AND PAGE AND MARTHA,
UM FOR DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB
AND GETTING US THROUGH THIS VERY
LONG HEARING AND THE WHOLE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF TWO NOW,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS
MEETING IS ADJOURNED.