DEFINITELY. YOU DESERVE IT. GOOD
AFTERNOON AND HAPPY EARTH DAY,
MR. KALRA, NOTICING A QUORUM,
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL? VICE CHAIR, ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. BRIAN HERE. BRIAN.
HERE. FLORA. FLORA. HERE.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. HERE.
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. HERE HOOVER.
HOOVER. HERE. CHOLERA. CHOLERA
HERE. MURATSUCHI. MURATSUCHI
HERE. PATTON THÀNH. PELLERIN.
HERE. PELLERIN HERE. WICKS.
WOOD. WOOD. HERE WE HAVE A
QUORUM. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT 24
MEASURES ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOE PATTERSON IS
GOING TO BE SUBBING IN FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MATHIS. LUCKY
US. THE FOLLOWING EIGHT MEASURES
ARE PROPOSED FOR CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR AB 227 8 OR 2 276.
WOULD ITEM SEVEN AB 2401 TÍNH.
ITEM TEN 2572 MURATSUCHI. ITEM
12 AB 2760 MURATSUCHI. ITEM 15
AB 2815 PETRIE-NORRIS. ITEM 18
2968. CONNOLLY ITEM 20 AB 3023
PAPEN. ITEM 21 AB 3057 WILSON,
WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR
SECOND. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE
CALL THE ROLL? CONSENT CALENDAR
BRIAN Ã. BRIAN. AYE. FLORA.
FLORA. AYE. BARBARA. KHN HI.
BARBARA. KHN. AYE. FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN AYE. HOOVER. HOOVER.
AYE. KALRA KALRA. AYE.
MURATSUCHI. AYE. MURATSUCHI.
AYE. PATTERSON PELLERIN.
PELLERIN. AYE. WICKS WOOD. WOOD.
AYE. GREAT. THE CONSENT CALENDAR
HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH. MR.
MURATSUCHI, YOU WERE GRANTED
RECONSIDERATION ON AB 3192 WITH
AMENDMENTS. WE'LL TAKE UP THAT
MEASURE NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE
RECONSIDERATION THÀNH. I AM RE
SUBMITTING FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION RECONSIDERATION
ASSEMBLY BILL 3192, WHICH I
BELIEVE, WE HAVE, TAKEN THREE
AMENDMENTS TO FURTHER CLARIFY
THAT, THIS WILL NOT IMPACT,
MAJOR GOLF TOURNAMENTS. THIS IS,
AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE BILL TO
STRENGTHEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS FOR MAJOR COASTAL
RESORTS THAT OPERATE GOLF
COURSES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT, THAT WE HAVE THE NECESSARY
PROTECTIONS FOR THESE SENSITIVE,
ECO SYSTEMS, SURROUNDING THESE
COASTAL RESORTS, ESPECIALLY IN
TERMS OF THEIR USE OF
FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES, WE
DID ALLOW WE'RE ALLOWING GOLF
COURSES ON THE COVERED RESORTS
TO USE NON-ORGANIC PESTICIDES,
WITH, THIS AMENDMENT, THE GOLF
COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS
ASSOCIATION THÀNH, THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR GOLF AND
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOLF
ASSOCIATION HAVE OFFICIALLY
REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, WE ALSO TOOK AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY THAT, IT'S ONLY
IMPACTING RESORTS WITH 300 OR
MORE ROOMS WITHIN THE SAME
CONTIGUOUS RESORT COMPLEX. TO
CLARIFY THAT THE PEBBLE BEACH
RESORTS WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED
HERE AGAIN, WOULD YOU LIKE,
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY OR, JUST BE
HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? WOULD
I'M OPEN TO EITHER ONE. WOULD
YOU LIKE YOUR WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY, PLEASE? SURE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, HONORABLE CHAIR BRIAN
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS JORDAN FINE. I'M A LEAD
RESEARCH ANALYST WITH UNITE HERE
LOCAL 11, WHICH REPRESENTS OVER
32,000 HOTEL AND FOOD SERVICE
WORKERS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND IS THE SPONSOR OF 3192. I'D
LIKE TO RECOGNIZE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK
PREPARING THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
FOR 3192 AND WORKING WITH US ON
AMENDMENTS. THE BILL IMPROVES
THE ENFORCEMENT RULES THAT MAJOR
COASTAL RESORTS ARE ALREADY
SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW BY MOVING
ENFORCEMENT FROM A SOLELY
COMPLAINT BASED SYSTEM TO AN
AUDIT BASED SYSTEM. THE BILL
ALSO REDUCES THE USE OF
SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES AND SINGLE
USE PLASTICS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
TO SENSITIVE COASTAL HABITATS.
ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD
BE COVERED BY THE BILL IS THE
TERRANEA RESORT IN RANCHO PALOS
VERDES. WE PROVIDED YOU WITH A
REPORT ISSUED BY SUNRISE
MOVEMENT LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
AND LOCAL 11 ISSUED LAST YEAR ON
EARTH DAY, TITLED HOW GREEN IS
THE TYRANNY? AS REVIEWED IN THE
REPORT, DATA INDICATES THAT
BETWEEN 2017 AND 2021, THE
TERRANEA, WHICH FEATURES A NINE
HOLE GOLF COURSE, USED 43
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PESTICIDES
AND HERBICIDES OR PLANT GROWTH
REGULATORS, INCLUDING ONE WHOSE
SAFETY DATA SHEETS STATES THE
CHEMICAL IS VERY TOXIC TO
AQUATIC AQUATIC LIFE WITH LONG
LASTING EFFECTS. WE'VE TAKEN
AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFIED THAT
ROOMS FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES
CANNOT BE AGGREGATED TO REACH
THE 300 ROOM THRESHOLD FOR THIS
BILL, AND TO ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LIST
FOR INDEPENDENT AUDITORS OR
RECEIVING AUDIT REPORTS CAN BE
ASSESSED AS A FEE BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION TO THE REGULATED
RESORTS. THIS BILL WILL RESULT
IN NO COSTS TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. WE ARE PROUD TO
STAND WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MURATSUCHI AS THE AUTHOR OF THIS
BILL AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON, HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ANDY
SEYMOUR. I'M READING THIS
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF NICO
GARDENER SERNA WITH SUNRISE
MOVEMENT LOS ANGELES, WHO
COULDN'T MAKE IT TODAY. SO OUR
ORGANIZATION CHAIRED AN APRIL
15TH. SORRY. JOINED IN APRIL
15TH. LETTER TO HONORABLE CHAIR
BRIAN, SIGNED BY 11
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND ALLIED
ORGANIZATIONS URGING AN AYE VOTE
ON 3192. THIS LETTER AND THE
FINDINGS IN THIS REPORT ALREADY
MENTIONED, TITLED HOW GREEN IS
THE TYRANNY SHOW THE DEEP NEED
FOR AB 3192, AUTHORED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MURATSUCHI.
CALIFORNIA'S COAST IS THE SITE
OF SOME OF THE WORLD'S MOST
TREASURED AND SENSITIVE
HABITATS. YET PORTIONS OF THE
COAST ARE OCCUPIED BY LARGE GOLF
RESORTS LIKE THE TERRA RESORT,
LOCATED ALONG AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE STRETCH OF THE PACIFIC
OCEAN, TERRANEA PROMINENTLY
MARKETS ITSELF AS ECO FRIENDLY,
BUT THE REPORT SUGGESTS TYRANNY
AS PUBLIC CLAIMS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND
PRIORITIES MAY BE OVERSTATED,
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, TYRANNY
HAS A, QUOTE, DISTURBING RECORD
OF RACCOONS AND OTHER MAMMALS
BEING TRAPPED AT THE RESORT BY
COMMERCIAL TRAPPERS. THE RESORT
AND GOLF COURSES OPERATION HAS
ALSO COINCIDED WITH A DROP IN
THE ESTIMATED LOCAL POPULATION
OF A SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES.
DEPEND ON COASTAL SAGE SCRUB,
THE COASTAL CACTUS WREN, END
QUOTE. ALSO, IN CONTRAST TO THE
TIERNEYS CLAIM, IMPLYING THAT IT
RECYCLES AND COMPOSTS, WORKERS
HAVE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED THAT
PLASTIC BOTTLES USED BY GUESTS
IN BANQUET EVENTS AND OTHER
RECYCLABLE ITEMS, SUCH AS FOOD
WASTE, HAVE BEEN DISCARDED WITH
THE RESORT'S ORDINARY GARBAGE
SORRY, AS WELL AS FOOD WASTE. SO
THE SPONSORS HAVE TAKEN AN
AMENDMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GOLF ASSOCIATION TO
REMOVE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW
THE USE OF NON-ORGANIC
PESTICIDES ON GOLF COURSES ONLY
WHEN APPLIED IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPLES, AND WHERE NO ORGANIC
ALTERNATIVE FIT FOR INTENDED USE
AND PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS IS
AVAILABLE. SO FOR THESE REASONS
AND MANY MORE, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE ON AB
3092. THANK YOU SO MUCH. USUALLY
ON RECONSIDERATION, WE KIND OF
WAIVE SOME OF THE NORMAL
PRESENTATION STUFF. BUT I THINK
WHEN HARD WORKING PEOPLE COME UP
TO THE CAPITOL TO BE SEEN AND TO
BE HEARD, WE SHOULD GIVE THEM
THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO IF THERE
ARE ANY PEOPLE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE,
FEEL FREE TO COME UP AND GIVE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. I THINK
WE'RE OKAY. WE'LL TAKE YOUR
STANDING AS CONSENT. YEAH. IS
THERE ANY OPPOSITION THAT WANTS
TO BE HEARD ON THIS BILL?
YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS YES. GOOD. IT'S A
GROUNDHOG DAY, I THINK, HERE
TODAY, JULIE MALINOWSKI BALL, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL
AND LODGING ASSOCIATION. FOR
THOSE WHO WEREN'T HERE THE LAST
TIME, YOU KNOW, AS DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY IN THE COMMITTEE, WE
BELIEVE IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO
WEAPONIZE THE COASTAL COMMISSION
IN A LABOR DISPUTE. PLAIN AND
SIMPLE. IT SETS A TERRIBLE
PRECEDENT. WHO'S THE NEXT GROUP
WAITING TO DISTRACT AN AGENCY
FROM ITS CORE MISSION, OR ARE
YOU READY FOR THIS TO QUICKLY
EXPAND, TO APPLY TO MORE HOTELS
OR BUSINESSES IN YOUR DISTRICT?
SO WE REMAIN OPPOSED, AS
AMENDED. WHO'S IN? WHO'S OUT?
FRANKLY, I WISH I COULD BE HERE
TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT CERTAIN,
CERTAIN COASTAL RESORTS WERE
CARVED OUT OF THIS. WE HAVE NOT
HEARD FROM A SINGLE MEMBER WHO
HAS SAID, WE BELIEVE NOW WE'RE
CARVED OUT OF THIS. I THINK THEY
ARE STILL SCRATCHING OUR HEAD.
SO AS THOSE THIS MEASURE IS FOR
FOCUSED ON ONE HOTEL, ONE
COASTAL RESORT, WE HAVE NOT
HEARD THAT ANYONE FEELS THAT
THEY ARE CARVED OUT OF IT WITH
THE AMENDMENTS, SO WE ALSO THINK
THAT EVEN AS AMENDED, LOTS OF
AMENDMENTS WERE TAKEN TO REDUCE
THE BURDEN ON THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. THE FACT OF THE
MATTER IS, THEY STILL HAVE A
BURDEN, THEY WILL I DON'T THINK
IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS BILL TO
DELIVER AUDITS AND REPORTS TO
THE COMMISSION AND JUST HAVE
THEM SIT ON A DESK. IT IS GOING
TO TAKE EFFORT ON THEIR PART AND
TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THEIR CORE
MISSION. SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS CONTINUES TO PROVIDE
DUPLICATIVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
AND WILL STILL IMPEDE MEANINGFUL
AND EFFECTIVE COASTAL PROTECTION
PROGRAMS. WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL NEVER
BE BRIEF, MR. CHAIR, AND RESPECT
, ROBERT MURRAY FOR THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE ARE ALSO OPPOSED TO AB 3092
FILLING IN FOR MY COLLEAGUE ADAM
WRIGLEY. SO I WILL BE FORCED TO
PUNT THE MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS
IF YOU HAVE THEM, APOLOGIES, THE
CORE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE SEE
THIS BILL AS DUPLICATIVE AND
POTENTIALLY IN CONFLICT WITH
EXISTING RECYCLING LAW,
PARTICULARLY POLICIES COMING OUT
OF SB 54 AND THE RECYCLING RATE
FOR PLASTIC BOTTLES, ALREADY
HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH RECYCLING
RATE AT 76% OF PET BOTTLES SOLD
IN 2023. AND WE EXPECT THAT TO
CONTINUE TO INCREASE COMING WITH
THE SB 54 FUNDING. SO WE DON'T
SEE THIS BILL'S ACTION IN THAT
SPACE AS A NECESSARY OR HELPFUL
THAT WAY. THANK YOU. OKAY
PERSONS OF THE COMMITTEE ROOM
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION. AUDRA HARTMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION. MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS. BEVERLY YOU, ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HELLO.
NICOLE QUINONES, ON BEHALF OF
THE HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION. IN
OPPOSITION. HI, NATALIE. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, IN
OPPOSITION, TÊ LÀ ROSHAN, ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN PLANT HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION, MR.
CHAIRMAN, CHRIS MICHELI ON
BEHALF OF NIAGARA BOTTLING
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. MAX
PERRY, ON BEHALF OF THE PEST
CONTROL OPERATORS OF CALIFORNIA.
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. AND ROB
SPIEGEL, CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU ALL SO MUCH. WE'LL TURN IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEING
NO Ó. MISS PELLER, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHOR FOR ANSWERING ALL MY
QUESTIONS OVER THE LAST FEW
DAYS, I DO FEEL LIKE THIS, BILL
IS TRYING TO REGULATE THINGS
THAT ARE ALREADY BEING
REGULATED. AS FAR AS AG
REGULATES THE USE OF CHEMICALS,
THE STATE WATER REGULATES
STORMWATER. I, I COMPLETELY
SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHING THE
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS. I
THINK THAT'S A REALLY KEY
COMPONENT OF THIS BILL, BUT I
THINK IT GOES SO MUCH FURTHER.
AND I HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT
THE IMPACT ON THE COASTAL
COMMISSION TO OVERSEE ISSUES
THAT ARE OUTSIDE THEIR
JURISDICTION, THEY CURRENTLY
HAVE A BACKLOG OF MORE THAN 3000
VIOLATIONS. AND, I'M JUST
WONDERING IF YOU'VE THOUGHT
ABOUT ANOTHER APPROPRIATE
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, HAVE YOU
GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO IT BEING A
DIFFERENT AGENCY THAN THE
COASTAL COMMISSION? I HAVE NOT,
BUT, I THINK THE CONCERNS ABOUT
OVERLOADING THE COASTAL
COMMISSION GOES TO ONE OF THE
MAIN POINTS OF THIS BILL, WHICH
IS TO REQUIRE MAJOR COASTAL
RESORTS TO PAY FOR THE AUDIT, TO
SELF AUDIT THEMSELVES SO THAT
THE COASTAL COMMISSION DOESN'T
HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GO OUT, SEND
THEIR INVESTIGATORS OUT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING. I
THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT, YOU
KNOW, WHEN WE PASS POLICIES
HERE, WE OFTEN DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
RESOURCES TO ENFORCE THE LAWS
AND THE POLICIES THAT WE'RE
PASSING HERE. AND THAT'S PART OF
THE POINT OF THIS BILL THAT
MAJOR COASTAL RESORTS WILL BE
REQUIRED TO SELF AUDIT
THEMSELVES SO THAT WE CAN
FURTHER ENSURE THAT, THAT THEY
ARE, IN FACT, COMPLYING WITH
EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOT HERE WANT
TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. NO, I
THINK YOU SAID IT VERY WELL.
WE'VE WE'VE CLARIFIED BY TAKING
AMENDMENTS THAT THIS WILL RESULT
IN NO COST TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION AND INSTEAD OF
PLACING THE ONUS ON WORKERS WHO
ARE NOT EXPERTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW TO SERVE
AS AS WHISTLEBLOWERS, RIGHT. WE
WANT THE RESORTS TO DO THESE
AUDITS AND DEMONSTRATE THAT
THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MISS BARRETT KHN,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU, MR. MURATSUCHI. AND I HAVE
TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE
FERTILIZER BILLS MYSELF. I THINK
IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT WE
LOOK AT OUR FERTILIZERS AND
WHAT'S IN IT AND PROTECT THE
ECOSYSTEM, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I DO THINK
IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT WE DO
SO IN A DATA DRIVEN WAY. AND I
THINK THAT THE AMENDMENTS GO A
LONG WAY. MY ONE QUESTION IS
THAT THE, THE BAN ON STRAWS,
WATER BOTTLES, STYROFOAM,
PLASTIC BAGS, I'M DOING THE
PLASTIC BAG BAN THIS YEAR. SO
CLEARLY I BELIEVE IN THESE
THINGS, AND I'VE SUPPORTED EVERY
PLASTIC BOTTLE BILL. BUT THE WAY
THAT IT'S RESTRICTED TO THIS
POPULATION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT'S LOGICAL. BEALL. SO I
JUST AM WONDERING WHY THIS BAN
ON THOSE PRODUCTS WOULD ONLY
APPLY TO THE FOLKS IN THIS BILL.
WELL I MEAN, I SEE IT AS JUST
ANOTHER STEP TOWARD, YOU KNOW,
TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE SINGLE
USE PLASTICS RIGHT ON THE COAST,
YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW,
WHILE, THE OPPOSITION IS
CORRECT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS
LEGISLATURE DID PASS, FOR
EXAMPLE, SB 54 THAT, YOU KNOW,
IS SET OUT THE, YOU KNOW, LONG
TERME PLAN FOR PHASING OUT,
SINGLE USE PLASTICS. IT'S, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE WE DON'T HAVE TIME
TO WASTE. I MEAN, I JUST FOR
EARTH DAY, THIS PAST WEEKEND, I
JUST DID A COASTAL CLEANUP
WHERE, YOU KNOW, AFTER ALL THE
RAINS, WE CONTINUE TO SEE ALL
THE PLASTIC THAT CONTINUES TO
WASH UP IN MY DISTRICT. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, WHEN TYRANNY AND MY
DISTRICT IS, YOU KNOW, IS
CONTINUING TO USE THESE SINGLE
USE PLASTICS NOTWITHSTANDING,
YOU KNOW, THE, THE MEASURES THAT
WE PASSED AND THAT YOU'RE
WORKING ON. I THINK THIS IS, YOU
KNOW, ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE IS,
MR. KARAS, BAN ON THE LITTLE
PLASTIC BOTTLES. I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, IT'S WE NEED A PUSH ON ALL
FRONTS BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE
DAMAGE TO OUR OUR BEACHES AND
OUR COASTS, CONTINUES. YEAH SO,
I MEAN, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, MR.
COLLOR'S BILL DIDN'T LIMIT WHICH
HOTELS THAT APPLIED TO, AND I
THINK THAT IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THIS ACROSS
THE BOARD, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU
RIGHT NOW THAT WE WERE DOING AN
EARTH DAY CLEANUP IN MY
COMMUNITY ON A CREEK THIS
WEEKEND, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS
WERE THERE. AND GUESS WHERE THEY
WERE GOING TO WASH UP, IN THE
COASTAL DISTRICT, BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE OUR CREEKS LEAD. SO I
THINK THIS I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT AS WE LOOK AT THIS, WE
DO THINGS THAT REALLY PROTECT
THE ENVIRONMENT WRIT LARGE. BUT
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
BUT LET'S THINK BIGGER. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION MOVE BY
MR. KALRA? SECOND BY MISS
BAUER-KAHAN. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL? THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. BRIAN, I BRIAN, I
FLORA. NO. FLORA. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN BARBARA KHN I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOOVER.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I MURATSUCHI I
MURATSUCHI. I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. NO. PELLERIN PELLERIN
NOT VOTING. WICKS WOULD AND
WOULD NOT VOTING. WE'LL LEAVE
THE CALL OPEN. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MISS SORIA. 2661. KHN TWO.
COMFORTABLE.
YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO
START BY REAFFIRMING THE
COMMITMENT I MADE IN THE
ASSEMBLY, UTILITIES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE TO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, AB 2661, AS PROPOSED
TO BE AMENDED, WILL HELP ACHIEVE
CALIFORNIA'S RENEWABLE GOALS BY
FOCUSING THE EFFORTS OF THE CPUC
AND LEVERAGING THE EXISTING
CAPABILITIES OF WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN MY
DISTRICT, TO DELIVER NEW SOLAR
GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION
LINES TO COMBAT THE IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE, CALIFORNIA HAS
SET AMBITIOUS GOALS TO INCREASE
THE USE OF CLEAN ENERGY, AIMING
TO ACHIEVE 60% OF ELIGIBLE
RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2030 AND
100% ZERO CARBON ENERGY BY 2045.
TO MEET THESE GOALS, NEW
RENEWABLE GENERATION FACILITIES
AND THOUSANDS OF MILES OF NEW
TRANSMISSION LINES ARE NEEDED.
THE CAISO HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP
30,000MW OF SOLAR IN THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY, CAL. ISIL'S
IDENTIFICATION OF THESE
POTENTIAL RESOURCES IS
ESPECIALLY TIMELY GIVEN CHANGES
OCCURRING IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
DUE TO THE SUSTAINABLE
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT, AS
GROUNDWATER BASINS ADOPT TO
SIGMA PLANS, MANY REGIONS OF THE
STATE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE
AS MUCH AS 20% DECLINE IN
AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY BY 2030.
DUE TO THIS MASSIVE CHANGE, IT
IS ESTIMATED BETWEEN 500,000 AND
900,000 ACRES OF FARMLAND MAY
NEED TO BE FALLOWED IN THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY ALONE, THIS
FALLOWED FARMLAND CAN BE THE KEY
TO EXPANDING OUR SOLAR
GENERATION. THÀNH WESTLANDS
WATER DISTRICT. WHO IS IN THE
BEST POSITION TO IDENTIFY
SUITABLE FALLOWED FARMLAND IN
THEIR SERVICE TERRITORY FOR
CONVERSION TO SOLAR GENERATION
CAN HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THE
STATE'S RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO
WHILE MAKING UP FOR THE LOST
WATER SUPPLY REVENUES NEEDED TO
CONTINUE SERVING THEIR REMAINING
WATER CUSTOMERS. UNFORTUNATELY,
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TRANSMISSION
CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR THE
CENTRAL VALLEY TO CAPITALIZE ON
THIS OPPORTUNITY. THUS, AB 2661
WILL REQUIRE THE CPUC TO
EVALUATE THIS POTENTIAL NEW
SOLAR GENERATION AND GIVES
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT THE
AUTHORITY TO BUILD, OWN AND
OPERATE TRANSMISSION LINES TO
CONNECT THIS NEW GENERATION TO
THE GRID. THIS WILL HELP US
ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE GOALS WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDING AN
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE IN PLACES LIKE WEST FRESNO
COUNTY, WHERE THE NEED FOR
SKILLED AND WELL-PAYING JOBS ARE
CRITICAL. THE PROJECTS THAT
COULD BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL WILL
HELP THESE WORKERS UPSKILL AND
ENTER INTO THE TRADES, WHICH
WILL UPLIFT THESE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE SO OFTEN LEFT OUT OF
THE CONVERSATION WHEN IT COMES
TO, DIFFERENT CLIMATE
INVESTMENTS. WITH ME HERE TODAY
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OUR Ã, IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2661 IS SCOTT
WELCH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR UTILITY
WORKERS AND THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AS WELL AS JEFF PAYNE
ON BEHALF OF WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU
MAY BEGIN. MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS SCOTT WELSH, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COALITION OF
UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, VERY PROUD TO BE HERE
WITH THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN AND
CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THIS BILL.
THIS BILL DOES TWO THINGS. IT
AUTHORIZES THE WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT TO OAN ELECTRIC
GENERATION, STORAGE AND
TRANSMISSION. CURRENTLY, WATER
DISTRICTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO OWN
GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION, IF
THEY HAVE HYDROELECTRIC POWER.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF
THAT. AND SECONDLY, IT DIRECTS
THE CPUC IN THE NEXT IRP TO
EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR
DEVELOPING 10 TO 30,000MW OF
SOLAR ENERGY AT THE WITHIN THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. AND IF IT
MEETS THE COMMISSION'S CURRENT,
STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING IF
IT'S COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT, THEN
THEY WOULD FORWARD THAT ON TO
THE CAL ISO. SO IT COULD BE
INTEGRATED INTO THE CAL ISO PLAN
. AND, IT JUST FOR, FOR THE
COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERS WHO MAY
NOT BE FAMILIAR, THE MAJOR
BOTTLENECK, IN THE STATE'S
ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
IS KNOWN AS PATH 15, RIGHT
WITHIN THE, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
THAT RUNS CONTIGUOUS TO THE
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, THAT
IS WHERE MANY TIMES OF THE YEAR
WE CANNOT GET, MOSTLY RENEWABLE
POWER NORTH. AND AT OTHER TIMES
OF THE YEAR WE CAN'T GET IT TO
THE SOUTH, WESTLANDS IS UNIQUELY
POSITIONED TO BE ABLE TO, FINISH
AND DO THIS PROJECT AND THEY CAN
DO IT AT A MUCH LOWER COST
BECAUSE THEIR CREDIT RATING
USING MUNICIPAL FINANCING IS
MUCH LOWER THAN THAT OF THE
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES AT THIS
TIME. AND BECAUSE THEY'VE
ALREADY DONE SO MUCH WORK UP
FRONT AND ARE THE LEAD AGENCY
FOR SEQUA PURPOSES, THIS IS
REALLY A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION
WHERE WHERE WE CAN CREATE TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS LITERALLY
AND HELP THE STATE MEET ITS
CARBON GOALS. AND SO WE WOULD
URGE AN AYE VOTE. I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. JEFF PAYNE, ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER FOR WESTLANDS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY,
THIS BILL, AS AMENDMENT WOULD
APPLY, WOULD PROVIDE AUTHORITIES
TO US THAT ARE CRUCIAL FOR
ALLOWING US TO EFFECTIVELY PLAN
AND PROVIDE STRATEGIC OVERSIGHT
OF LAND BEING TRANSITIONED OUT
OF AGRICULTURE FOR SOLAR WITHIN
OUR DISTRICT. WE'VE BEGUN A SIX
YEAR PROCESS MENTIONED BY SCOTT
FOR THIS CHANGE. MUCH LIKE MUCH
OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY,
ROUGHLY 35% OF OUR DISTRICT HAS
REMAINED FALLOW OVER THE PAST
DECADE DUE TO WATER SUPPLY
RELIABILITY PROBLEMS. THE SCALE
OF THIS IS VERY YEAR TO YEAR,
BUT APPROXIMATELY 140 TO 220,000
ACRES OF LAND IS BEING FALLOWED
ANNUALLY. OVER THE PAST DECADE.
OUR CURRENT PLANS ARE TO CONVERT
UP TO 130,000 ACRES TO SOLAR
GENERATION. THIS IS LESS THAN
THE 140 TO 2 20,000 THAT WE'VE
SEEN. FALLOWED AND IMPORTANTLY,
THE VSIP DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE
BONDED SUCH THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
FACILITIES REMOVED AND CONVERTED
BACK TO IRRIGABLE LAND OR
ANOTHER PURPOSE AT THE END OF
THEIR USELESS LIFE, WHICH IS
ABOUT 30 YEARS. AT THAT TIME,
DIFFERENT DECISIONS COULD BE
MADE FOR THE LAND BASED ON
DECISION RELEVANT CONDITIONS. AT
THAT TIME, OUR OVERSIGHT
PROVIDED THROUGH THIS BILL WOULD
ALLOW WESTLANDS TO FAVOR
TRANSITION OF THESE LANDS THAT
ARE MARGINAL DRAINAGE, IMPAIRED
OR WHICH ARE IDEAL FOR DUAL USES
SUCH AS FLOOD WATER RECHARGE,
AGRIVOLTAICS AND THE LIKE. IT
ALSO ALLOWS US TO MANAGE THE
LANDS CONSISTENT WITH THE
SURROUNDING USES OF THE
COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND TO BETTER
PRESERVE THE AGRICULTURAL
HERITAGE OF THE DISTRICT, AS IT
MAKES A SIGNIFICANT TRANSITION
FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT? MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, BOB
GIRAUD, ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS
AND ALLIED TRADES, SUPPORTING
OUR BRETHREN IN THE UTILITY
WORKERS, UNIONS, ALSO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA DAIRY
INSTITUTE AND A SMALL DISTRICT
BUSINESS IN SENATOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SORIA'S DISTRICT, THE E
AND J GALLO WINERY FAMILY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU,
MR. GIRAUD. MICHAEL BOCCADORO,
ON BEHALF OF THE AG ENERGY
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHER
AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. ROB SPIEGEL, CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. TAYLOR
OCEAN ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
CITRUS MUTUAL, CALIFORNIA COTTON
GROWERS AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL
ASSOCIATIONS IN SUPPORT. MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TRICIA
GERINGER WITH AGRICULTURAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
. DENNIS ALBIANI, ON BEHALF OF
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER
AGENCY, CALIFORNIA SEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA GRAIN
AND FEED, AND A FEW OTHERS.
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY REGISTERED
OPPOSITION WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE
HEARD ON THIS BILL? ANY FOLKS IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. WOOD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO
THANK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. WE
SAW THIS IN UTILITIES AND ENERGY
LAST WEEK. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THIS AGAIN. I WE HEARD WE HEARD
IN THAT COMMITTEE HEARING THAT
THIS IS AN ELEGANT SOLUTION TO A
CHALLENGE. AND I, I WOULD AGREE
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT FOR
THOSE WHO DIDN'T GET TO HEAR
THAT, AND I WOULD SAY THAT OUR
TRANSMISSION CHALLENGES, WHILE
THEY ARE REALLY PROMINENT IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, THEY EXIST
STATEWIDE. AND IT IS A HUGE
CHALLENGE FOR US. MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM, FROM THE
PREVIOUS TESTIMONY IS THAT THIS
WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME
IT TAKES TO, TO FOR THE
PERMITTING AND BUILDING PROCESS
FOR TRANSMISSION BY SEVERAL
YEARS. AND I THINK THAT'S
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT IF WE
ARE GOING TO ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE
GOALS, WE MUST MOVE FORWARD AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO SHORTEN
THE 7 TO 12 YEAR TIME PERIOD
WHERE TRANSMISSION IS, IS
PERMITTED, SITED AND BUILT. SO
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. WOOD. MISS
PELLERIN, JUST A QUICK QUESTION
AND THANKS FOR THE AUTHOR OF
THIS BILL, IS THIS INCLUDE LIKE
THE BUILDING OF SOLAR FARMS?
KIND OF A AND ARE YOU LOOKING AT
DOING IT OVER THE CANALS AS
WELL, OR IS IT GOING TO JUST BE
ON THE FALLOW FARMLAND? DO YOU
WANT TO ADDRESS THIS? THIS IS
JUST FOR FARMLAND. YES ANY OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MR.
PATTERSON? THANK YOU, I JUST
WANTED, LIKE, MR. WOOD, I ALSO
SAT ON THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE,
AND, I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE
BILL BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS IN,
IN THAT COMMITTEE, BECAUSE I
THINK A LOT OF WATER DISTRICTS
HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND CAN DO
SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO HELP
EXPEDITE, TRANSMISSION, WHICH
WE'RE DESPERATELY GOING TO NEED
TO DO SOON. BUT I THINK TAKING A
FIRST, FIRST SWING AT IT IS
GREAT. AND SO HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. PATTERSON. SEEING
NO OTHER COMMENTS, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE AND ALSO CONFIRM
THAT YOU'LL TAKE THE AMENDMENTS
FROM UTILITIES? YES. I WILL BE,
CONFIRMING THAT I HAVE ACCEPTED
THOSE AMENDMENTS. AND I WOULD
JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THIS
BILL ENJOYS A DUE PASS RECORD
FROM THE CHAIR. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL? THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN. HI BRIAN.
AYE. FLORA. FLORA. AYE. BARRETT.
KHN BARRETT. KHN. AYE.
FRIEDMAN HOOVER. CHOLERA
CHOLERA. AYE. MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI. AYE PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. PELLERIN. HI
PELLERIN. AYE. WICKS. WOULD
WOOD. AYE. THAT BILLS OUT. THANK
YOU, MR. ALVAREZ. YOU WANT TO
START WITH 2560, NO. IF WE COULD
PLEASE START WITH 3227. SURE.
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THROUGH THE BILL, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
, ADDRESS STORMWATER CHANNEL
MAINTENANCE, STREAMLINING ACT
ASSEMBLY BILL 3227. I'D LIKE TO
BEGIN BY THANKING STAFF, WORKING
WITH OUR OFFICE AND, FOR THE
ANALYSIS THAT THEY'VE PREPARED
ON THIS ISSUE. AB 3227
ELIMINATES ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS
FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, FOR
STORMWATER CHANNELS THAT ARE
FULLY CONCRETE OR THAT HAVE A
CONVEYANCE CAPACITY OF LESS THAN
A 100 YEAR STORM EVENT, WHICH IS
THE FEMA STANDARD FOR
ESTABLISHING FLOOD INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS. SPECIFICALLY, THIS
BILL PROVIDES CERTAINTY TO LOCAL
AGENCIES BY PROVIDING SPECIFIC
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF
STORMWATER CHANNELS TO PREVENT
FLOODING. STORMWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN
HISTORICALLY UNDERFUNDED ACROSS
THE STATE, AND MANY CHANNELS
HAVE ARE NOT BUILT TO WITHSTAND
MAJOR WEATHER EVENTS AND OFTEN
ALSO ARE NOT MAINTAINED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY CAN WITHSTAND
THOSE EVENTS. AS WE SAW IN
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AND MY
HOMETOWN OF SAN DIEGO, WHICH WAS
HIT WITH AN ATMOSPHERIC RIVER
THAT BROUGHT NEARLY THREE INCHES
OF RAIN WITHIN JUST THREE HOURS.
TO PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE, THREE
INCHES IN SAN DIEGO IS ABOUT ONE
THIRD OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
RAIN THAT WE USUALLY GET ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, THAT CAUSED
UNPRECEDENTED FLOODING, WHICH
YOU PROBABLY SOME SAW THE IMAGES
OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING, THE
DESTRUCTION THAT HAPPENED IN THE
PUBLIC STREETS AS A RESULT OF
THIS FLOODING, OVER 800
HOUSEHOLDS, HOUSEHOLDS, EXCUSE
ME, WITH WATER LEVELS THAT ROSE
ABOUT FIVE FEET AND BEYOND FIVE
FEET IN SOME CASES, WHICH CAUSED
WIDESPREAD DAMAGE TO
COMMUNITIES. AS WE SEE MORE
FREQUENT AND MORE INTENSE RAIN
EVENTS, WE NEED TO ALLOW OUR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE
PROACTIVE MEASURES BY CLEARING
OUT STORMWATER CHANNELS WITHOUT
ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS,
LAWSUITS, OR OTHER COMPLEX
BUREAUCRATIC PROCESSES. AB 3227
RESPONDS TO THAT BY CREATING A
FIVE YEAR EXEMPTION UNDER SEQUA
TO CUT THE RED TAPE AND PAVE THE
WAY FOR TIMELY UPKEEP OF THESE
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES. DUE TO THE
IMMEDIATE NEED TO COMPLETE
MAINTENANCE TO PREVENT FUTURE
FLOODING, WE HAVE PROPOSED TO
ADD AN URGENCY CLAUSE, SO THIS
BILL MAY TAKE EFFECT BEFORE THE
RAINY SEASON BEGINS AGAIN THIS
YEAR IN OCTOBER, WITH THAT, I'D
LIKE TO INTRODUCE MISS MOIRA
TOP, WHO WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SPONSOR
OF THIS LEGISLATION. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO. WE ARE A SPONSOR OF AB
3227. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT
PROVIDES US OPPORTUNITIES TO
CLEAR THE STORM CHANNELS BEFORE
THE RAIN EVENTS OCCUR.
CURRENTLY, SEQUA WILL TRIGGER
MITIGATION AND THAT MITIGATION
IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BEFORE
THE CLEARING WORK BEGINS.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S PARTICULARLY
CHALLENGING WHEN WE'RE FACING A
AN IMMEDIATE THREAT OF A STORM,
COMING SOON. ESSENTIALLY, THIS
BILL PROVIDES CERTAINTY TO LOCAL
AGENCIES, ALLOWING THEM TO MOVE
FORWARD QUICKLY WITH CRITICAL
MAINTENANCE WITHIN STORM WATER
FACILITIES TO PREVENT
CATASTROPHIC FLOODING. AB 3227
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT LOCAL
AGENCIES MAY RELY ON THE
EMERGENCY EXEMPTION WITHIN SEQUA
FOR ROUTINE CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
TO PREVENT FLOODING AND
ELIMINATING TIME CONSUMING
ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS. MOREOVER,
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES HAVE
HISTORICALLY SUFFERED UNDER
BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS. THEY'D BE 3227
WILL HELP LOCAL AGENCIES
EXPEDITE FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES
AHEAD OF STORM EVENTS TO ENSURE
THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF
FLOODING. SO, ON BEHALF OF MAYOR
TODD GLORIA AND THE FULL CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANYBODY IN THE HEARING
ROOM WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE,
SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY FORMAL
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
SEEING NONE. ANYBODY IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE, TO THIS MEASURE,
SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW RETURN
IT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. BILL
SECOND MOTION BY MR. MURATSUCHI.
SECOND BY MR. WOOD. THIRD BY
MISS BAUER-KAHAN, MR. ALVAREZ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU, MISS BAUER-KAHAN, FOR THE
SECOND AND THE MOTION AND TO THE
MOTION. MR. MURATSUCHI, I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT ON THIS,
AS WAS STATED, HOPING TO GET
AHEAD OF WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD
BE A MORE COMMON SCENARIO OF
SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENTS. STORM
EVENTS, AND AGAIN, APPRECIATE
YOUR SUPPORT. I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
MEASURE FORWARD, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
PUTTING ALL THE WORK IN OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL DAYS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GOT THIS RIGHT. AND I
THINK IT'S WILDLY APPROPRIATE TO
PUT THE URGENCY CLAUSE ON IT,
THIS BILL HAS A DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL? THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR CHAIR.
BRIAN I BRIAN, I FLORA, I FLORA
I BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. I
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI
I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I
PELLERIN I PELLERIN I WICKS
WOOD. WOOD I. THANK YOU. THAT
MEASURES OUT. THANK THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. 2560. YES.
THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY SECOND
BILL BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
THIS IS ASSEMBLY BILL 2560, I
WANT TO TAKE PARTICULAR, TAKE
THE MOMENT TO THANK THE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE, WHO HAS BEEN
REALLY, SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
PROCESS, WHICH HAS BEEN, A
PROCESS OF REVIEW WHERE WE
STARTED IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS
BILL AIMS TO DO AND WHERE WE
STAND TODAY. SO, THIS BILL IS
REALLY ABOUT THE ABILITY TO
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL
OF CALIFORNIA, I CAN GET INTO
STATISTICS ABOUT, WHY HOUSING IS
NEEDED. YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR
THAT, BUT I DO THINK WE WANT TO
PLACE SPECIFIC ATTENTION ON IS
TO THE COASTAL METRO AREAS WHERE
A 2015 LÀ REPORT ON HOUSING
PRICES IN CALIFORNIA IDENTIFIED
THAT THE TYPICAL US METRO AREA
COSTS GREW BY 54% IN TERMS OF,
HOUSING UNITS THAT WERE BUILT
WHILE IN CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL
METROS THAT ONLY INCREASED BY BY
32, BUT LESS EASILY LESS, SIMPLE
TO QUANTIFY ARE THE COUNTLESS
UNITS THAT GO UNDER DEVELOPED
THAT YOU NEVER GET BUILT BECAUSE
THE MAJORITY OF DEVELOPERS HAVE
COMPLETELY ABANDONED TRYING TO
BUILD IN PLACES LIKE OUR COAST.
AT ITS CORE, AB 2560 IS A
REJECTION OF THE STATUS QUO,
WHICH SAYS THAT THE CURRENT
PROCESS FOR BUILDING AND
DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
OUR WEALTHY COASTAL AREAS IS
SUFFICIENT. IT ISN'T. WE NEED TO
DO MORE. IT IS. THIS IS A
RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT WE
LACK THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR
HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE COASTAL
ZONE, THAT DEVELOPERS MUST RELY
ON IN ORDER TO, JUST LIKE THE
REST OF THE STATE AND THE REST
OF THE STATE, IN ORDER TO TAKE
ON THE RISKY INVESTMENT OF
BUILDING HOUSING, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT'S NO LONGER
ACCEPTABLE. I BELIEVE I FULLY
APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
COAST AS A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR
OUR STATE, AND THE NEED FOR IT
TO HAVE A LAYER OF PROTECTION TO
STYMIE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT
NOWHERE WE SHOULD NEVER BE
BUILDING ON, SUCH AS WETLANDS,
NEAR CLIFFS, OR NEAR CLIFFS THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO SEA LEVEL RISE.
THIS APPRECIATION IS WHY WE HAVE
ADDED ENVIRONMENTAL CARVE OUTS,
NEGOTIATED AND AGREED UPON
DURING LAST YEAR'S DISCUSSION OF
SB 423. ADDITIONALLY, UNLIKE
OTHER HOUSING LAWS, STATE
DENSITY BONUS IS PERFECTLY
TAILORED TO IMPLEMENT IN THE
COAST. IF A DEVELOPER CAN ONLY
UTILIZE INCENTIVES AND
CONCESSIONS IN THE STATE.
DENSITY BONUS LAW. IN AREAS
PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE FIT
FOR HOUSING THROUGH THEIR ZONED
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN? YOU CAN ONLY USE
THIS PROGRAM IF THE PARCEL IS
ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
YOU CANNOT BUILD ANYWHERE ELSE,
ONLY WHERE HOUSING IS CURRENTLY
ALLOWED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
THIS FINDING I LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT WHAT IS OFTEN LOST IN THESE
CONVERSATIONS IS THE LACK OF
HOUSING IS MORE THAN A HOUSING
ISSUE. IT'S ALSO AN EQUITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTER FOR THE
COASTAL ECONOMY TO FUNCTION, IT
REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
SERVICE WORKERS TO SERVE AS A
BACKBONE OF THAT ECONOMY.
HOWEVER, BEING UNABLE TO AFFORD
HOUSING NEAR THEIR JOB SITE
NECESSITATES THESE WORKERS TO
EXPEND THE RESOURCES AND EMIT
FURTHER CO2 INTO THE AIR TO
TRAVEL FOR WORK, COMPOUNDING THE
CLIMATE CRISIS AND THREATENING
THE VERY COASTLINE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION IS ENTRUSTED TO
PROTECT BY ENSURING THAT WE
INCREASE HOUSING DENSITY IN ALL
AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
AREAS DETERMINED FIT FOR HOUSING
ON THE COAST. WE CAN MAKE A REAL
IMPACT ON THE HOUSING CRISIS. I
WANT TO NOW TURN MY ATTENTION TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE'S,
ANALYSIS, WHICH IS SUGGESTING
SOME AMENDMENTS TO MY BILL. I
WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY CALL
YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE EIGHT OF
THE ANALYSIS. THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT SECTION NINE, IN
WHICH, M ONE, ADDS SOME
EXEMPTIONS TO WHERE THIS BILL
COULD BE APPLIED. IN PARTICULAR,
I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO M1
THREE, WHICH IS A SUBDIVISION A
OF SECTION 30603 OF THE PUBLIC
RESOURCE CODE. THE PUBLIC
RESOURCE CODE. STATES THESE, AND
I CERTAINLY WOULD BE INTERESTED
IN THIS COMMITTEE'S FEEDBACK ON
WHY WE SHOULD EXEMPT HOUSING IN
THESE AREAS AS THIS AMENDMENT
SEEKS TO DO. A SENSITIVE COASTAL
AREA, WHICH COULD BE SPECIAL
MARINE AND LAND HABITAT AREAS,
WETLANDS, LAGOONS AND ESTUARIES,
IS MAPPED AND DESIGNATED IN PART
FOUR OF THE COASTAL PLAN NO ONE
DISAGREES WITH THAT. NO ONE
WANTS TO TOUCH THOSE AREAS. BE
SEA AREAS POSSESSING SIGNIFICANT
RECREATIONAL VALUE. WHAT ARE
THOSE AREAS? I DON'T KNOW, I
POSE THAT AS A QUESTION BECAUSE
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SPEAKS TO
. HIGHLY SCENIC AREAS IS ANOTHER
AREA THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED HIGHLY SCENIC
IN CALIFORNIA. YOU COULD YOU
COULD ARGUE ALL OF CALIFORNIA'S
COAST IS HIGHLY SCENIC. THIS
WOULD AGAIN, PROHIBIT DENSITY
BONUS FROM BEING USED IN THOSE
AREAS. THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT THE
OTHER ONE I'D CALL YOUR
ATTENTION TO IS AREAS THAT
PROVIDE EXISTING COASTAL HOUSING
OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
PERSONS. I REMIND YOU THAT
DENSITY BONUS LAW IS ABOUT
CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. WHY WOULD WE
PROHIBIT FROM BUILDING AN AREAS
WHERE LOW INCOME AND MODERATE
INCOME PERSONS RECREATE OR LIVE?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASONING
IS BEHIND THAT. I RAISE THAT
BECAUSE IT IS A GENUINE QUESTION
THAT I HAVE. I WILL TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY, BUT I WILL LET
YOU KNOW THAT I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS MEANS,
BECAUSE IF THIS JUST CREATES
MORE LOOPHOLES FOR WHERE HOUSING
CANNOT BE BUILT, I DON'T THINK
THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH.
FINALLY, I'LL MENTION SOMETHING
THAT WAS ELIMINATED FROM OUR
LANGUAGE. THAT'S NOT IN YOUR
ANALYSIS IS, AREAS THAT ARE
LOCAL USE PLANS. THESE ARE IN
SOME INSTANCES, FULL CITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, AND
THERE'S 31, ACCORDING TO COASTAL
COMMISSION'S WEBSITE. AND I AM
NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY WE
ELIMINATED THOSE FROM PLACES
WHERE WE COULD BUILD DENSITY
BONUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THOSE
ARE QUESTIONS THAT REMAINED WITH
ME TODAY. BUT IN ORDER TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND MAYBE
GET ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS
AS THIS GOES THROUGH THE
PROCESS, IS THE BEST CASE
SCENARIO IS TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THAT IS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO THE WITNESSES
WHO ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. ALVAREZ.
TWO MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
NEVADA MERRIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT
OF POLICY AND ADVOCACY FOR
MID-PEN HOUSING. WE'RE ONE OF
THE LARGEST NONPROFIT
DEVELOPERS, OWNERS, MANAGERS OF
HOUSING WITH OVER 8800 HOMES.
THESE ARE FOR LOW INCOME
FAMILIES, SENIORS, HOMELESS
FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS. WE HAVE 331 HOMES
IN SIX PROPERTIES IN THE COASTAL
ZONE, WITH ANOTHER 173 UNDER
DEVELOPMENT, THE UNDER
DEVELOPMENT IN MONTEREY, SANTA
CRUZ, SAN MATEO COUNTIES. AND WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
DEDICATION TO BALANCING THE
STATE'S COASTAL ENVIRONMENT,
RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. THE
DENSITY BONUS IS A CRITICAL TOOL
FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
VIRTUALLY ALL 4500 UNITS IN OUR
DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE AND 10,000
UNIT PORTFOLIO OF OPERATIONAL
HOMES HAVE OR HAVE USED THE
DENSITY BONUS. WITHOUT THIS
TOOL, WE WOULD ROUGHLY HAVE 3500
FEWER HOMES BUILDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AT A HIGHER DENSITY IS A
BEST PRACTICE, AND THE REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLANNING PROCESS SETS TARGETS
ACROSS THE STATE TO MEET THE
SCALE OF THE HOUSING CRISIS. IN
OUR TWO MOST RECENT EXAMPLES IN
DEVELOPING IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
WE FACED ENORMOUS HEADWINDS.
JESSIE STREET, A PROJECT 50 UNIT
HOMES, FOUR STORY PROJECT FOR
VETERANS FORMERLY HOMELESS
INDIVIDUALS AND FOLKS WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY, THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ.
IN 2019, THE CITY ASKED US TO
USE AB 1763 AND AB 2162. THESE
BILLS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
PASSED ALLOW FOR MORE DENSITY
AND STREAMLINED ENTITLEMENTS.
WHEN THESE BILLS WERE PASSED,
THERE WAS NO CLEAR PATH FOR HOW
TO IMPLEMENT THEM IN THE COASTAL
ZONE. CITY STAFF AND COASTAL
COMMISSION STAFF WORKED
COLLABORATIVELY,
COLLABORATIVELY, TOGETHER, AND
THAT PIECE OF THE STORY IS ONE
OF SUCCESS. HOWEVER, THEY NEEDED
OVER A YEAR TO CONFIRM THE PATH
FOR OBTAINING A LOCAL COASTAL
PERMIT AND CEQA EXEMPTION. THIS
IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF
MINISTERIAL PROCESSING, AS WAS
DEFINED IN AB 2162, AND EACH
ENTITY DID THEIR JOB, WOULD THEY
BELIEVE THEY WERE TASKED TO DO
AND DID IT WITH PROFESSIONALISM,
WITH GRACE. HOWEVER, STAFF IN
THE COASTAL COMMISSION LACK
AUTHORITY AND THEIR VIEW TO RELY
UPON ENTIRE LOCAL REVIEW, CLEAR
EXEMPTION EXCLUSIONS AND OTHER
APPLICATIONS OF STATE LAW ARE
ARE NECESSARY IN THIS CLIMATE
UNCERTAINTY. I CAN SAY WITHOUT
HESITATION THIS PROJECT WOULD
NOT HAVE MADE SENSE TO PURSUE
HAD WE NOT ALREADY OWNED A
BUILDING THAT WAS OPERATIONAL
FOR 30 YEARS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LUIS MARANTE
. I REPRESENT THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL ON HOUSING POLICY AND
I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT AB 2560
TODAY FOR, I BELIEVE, THE SECOND
YEAR. AND ONE OF THE REASONS I
AM SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS BILL
IS THAT THE COASTAL ACT, IN
PARTICULAR, IS AN AREA OF STATE
LAW THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS
MODERNIZATION. NO ONE HERE IS
PROPOSING THAT WE THROW OUT
COASTAL PROTECTION, OR THAT WE
ALLOW SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT
THE COASTAL ACT WAS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
PROPOSE HERE IS ITSELF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFILL
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH RENT
NEIGHBORHOODS, AS THIS BILL
WOULD ALLOW, IS THE BEST DEFENSE
THE STATE HAS AGAINST THOSE
PROJECTS THAT SPRAWL INTO OUR
WORKING AND NATURAL LANDS. AND
IT IS IT IS THE BEST WAY FOR THE
STATE TO ACCELERATE, NOT JUST ON
ITS HOUSING GOALS, BUT ON ITS
GOALS OF GETTING MORE PEOPLE
ACCESS TO THE COAST. INFILL
HOUSING SUCH AS THIS BILL WOULD
PROPOSE THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNATED,
THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED IN, IN
COORDINATION WITH ALL OF THE
LOCAL COASTAL PLANS THAT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION WILL REVIEW.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT
PROMOTES ACCESS TO THE COAST,
THAT DEFENDS THE COASTAL
ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT HELPS US
HOUSE CALIFORNIANS IN THE COAST,
THIS BILL HAS BEEN IMMENSELY
IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE IN
TALKING WITH OUR MEMBERS ABOUT
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COAST, IT HAS
BECOME EXTREMELY CLEAR THAT FOR
MANY DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPING IN
THE COAST IS REGARDED AS
PROFESSIONAL VÆ, IRRESPONSIBLE
BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE
OF THE PROCESS AND BECAUSE SO
FEW OF THE PROCESSES HAVE
TIMELINES OR WAYS TO HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT
THE POLICY ACTUALLY SAYS. THAT'S
A SHAME, BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES
THE SPRAWL THAT WE IN THIS
COMMITTEE ARE PURPORTED TO BE
AGAINST. THIS BILL WILL INCREASE
DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CERTAINTY. IT WILL INCREASE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, AND THAT TOGETHER
WILL INCREASE COASTAL ACCESS
ALONG WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS AND THE STATE'S ABILITY
TO PROTECT THE COAST. I URGE
YOUR SUPPORT FOR IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS
IN THIS HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THIS MEASURE? THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MOYAMOYA TOF.
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS LAUREN DE VALENCIA,
REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
PLANNING ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. BOSTON MADINET W
STRATEGIES HERE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT ALEX
TORRES ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT.
REBECCA MARCUS, REPRESENTING
LEADING AGE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT ABSOLUTELY ANY WITNESSES
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL?
WE MUST MOVE DOWN. WE GOT ENOUGH
SEATS. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
I'M SEAN DRAKE, LEGISLATIVE
MANAGER FOR THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION. WHILE THE
COMMISSION SUPPORTS THE GOAL OF
PROVIDING MORE DENSE HOUSING IN
THE COASTAL ZONE, WE ARE OPPOSED
TO AB 2560. BECAUSE THE COASTAL
ACT EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY
TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. THIS BILL
WOULD REPEAL THE COASTAL ACT
SAVINGS CLAUSE FROM DENSITY
BONUS LAW, WHICH WAS CODIFIED TO
ENSURE THAT DENSITY BONUS
PROJECTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DENSITY
WITHOUT HARMING COASTAL
RESOURCES. FOR THE LAST 20
YEARS, MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN
THE COASTAL ZONE HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY INCORPORATED THE
MANY INCENTIVES AFFORDED BY
DENSITY BONUS LAW. WHILE ALSO
AVOIDING UNNECESSARY IMPACTS TO
SENSITIVE HABITATS. PUBLIC
COASTAL ACCESS, OR CLIMATE
ADAPTATION EFFORTS. THIS BILL
WOULD INSTEAD ESTABLISH THE
DENSITY BONUS LAW ENTIRELY
SUPERSEDES THE COASTAL ACT AND
INVALIDATES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
LCP POLICIES. THIS WOULD GIVE
DEVELOPERS OF DENSITY BONUS
PROJECTS ON THE COAST CARTE
BLANCHE TO SELECTIVELY IGNORE
COASTAL EROSION SETBACKS.
WETLAND BUFFERS, OR PUBLIC
COASTAL ACCESS WAYS. THIS
EXEMPTION ALSO PUNISHES LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE
PROACTIVELY UPDATED THEIR LCP TO
INCLUDE DENSITY BONUS
PROVISIONS. CITIES LIKE SANTA
CRUZ AND LONG BEACH THAT HAVE
BEEN AWARDED THE GOVERNOR'S PRO
HOUSING DESIGNATION. THESE
CITIES ARE PROOF THAT DENSE
INFILL HOUSING AND COASTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
EFFORTS TO TRY TO LIMIT THE
DAMAGE OF THIS BILL BY USING THE
MODEL ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR BY
SB 423. UNFORTUNATELY IN THE
CONTEXT OF THIS BILL, THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS STILL ALLOW
PARCELS TO BE ENTIRELY EXEMPT
FROM THE COASTAL ACT IN MANY
PARTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE. THIS
GOES FARTHER THAN SB 423 FOR 23
WAS NOT AN EXEMPTION BILL.
THANKS TO THIS COMMITTEE, SB 423
PROJECTS ARE STREAMLINED BUT ARE
STILL REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH
THE POLICIES OF THE LCP. THIS
BILL WOULD EXEMPT A CLASS OF
PROJECTS FROM HAVING TO COMPLY
WITH THE COASTAL ACT AT ALL
MEMBERS. THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED
BETTER WAY TO DO THIS. WE
CONTINUE TO SUGGEST THAT THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE AMEND
THE BILL TO REQUIRE COASTAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHO HAVEN'T
DONE SO, TO AMEND THEIR LCP TO
INCLUDE DENSITY BONUS POLICIES.
BEFORE I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A
NO VOTE, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY
ONE FACTUAL INACCURACY THAT WAS
STATED PREVIOUSLY REGARDING THE
NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS THAT
ONLY HAVE A LAND USE PLAN. IT IS
NOT 31, IT IS NINE, AND THE
MAJORITY OF THEM IT IS ONLY A
PORTION OF THE JURISDICTION. AND
IN MOST OF THESE IT IS THE MOST
OF THESE IT IS THE PORTION THAT
CONTAINS, FOR EXAMPLE, A WETLAND
COMPLEX LIKE THE BOLSA CHICA
WETLANDS PORTION OF ORANGE
COUNTY. THESE ARE SMALL AREAS WE
RESPECT THE COMMITTEE'S
INTENTION AND INCLUDING THEM IN
THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THESE AREAS
APPLY. THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, HAPPY EARTH DAY CHAIR
BRIAN AND HONORABLE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, HAPPY EARTH DAY. MY
NAME IS CHRISTOPHER MARWOOD, AND
I AM A LEGISLATIVE FELLOW WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
COMMITTEE, OR EAC. AND I'M
SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED LETTER ON APRIL
16TH. WE SUBMIT AND OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED LETTER RATHER
THAN HOLDING A STRAIGHT OPPOSED
POSITION BECAUSE WE FIRMLY AND
GENUINELY BELIEVE THERE EXISTS A
PATH WITH THE DENSITY. BONUS LAW
CO-EXISTS WITH PUBLIC ACCESS AND
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTIONS.
I'M GOING STRAIGHT TO THE POINT.
I AM HERE TODAY TO DEFEND PUBLIC
ACCESS GUARANTEES AND COASTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTIONS THAT THE
COASTAL ACT PROVIDES FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS IS CURRENT.
APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES THE
HARMONIZATION OF THE COASTAL ACT
AND THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. THIS
IS EVIDENCED IN STATUTORY
LANGUAGE WITHIN THE COASTAL ACT
AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF
THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. THE
QUESTION IS WHY UPEND THIS
EXISTING HARMONY? THE AUTHORS
ASSERTIONS ARE UNSUPPORTED BY
HIS OWN MATERIALS. MOST
COMPELLING IS THAT THE AUTHOR'S
OWN FACT SHEET CITED A PAPER ON
MASSACHUSETTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
LAW, KNOWN AS 40 BE. THAT PAPER
DESCRIBES THE COASTAL ACT AS THE
FOLLOWING. THE COASTAL ACT
PROVIDES A STRONG ANALOGOUS
BASIS FOR CALIFORNIA 40 B
LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT
INCORPORATES STATUTORY FEATURES
HIGHLY ALIGNED TO THOSE PROPOSED
FOR CALIFORNIA. 40 B, INCLUDING
A STATEWIDE PUBLIC POLICY
INITIATIVE, LOCAL LAND USE
PERMITTING SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY
STATE LAW, AND STATE LEVEL
APPELLATE REVIEW SYSTEM. SO
WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT?
WELL, THIS PAPER URGES THE
AUTHOR TO DO THE COMPLETE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS BILL
PROPOSES. SIMPLY UTILIZE THE
COASTAL ACT TO IMPLEMENT HOUSING
POLICY RATHER THAN EXEMPT
HOUSING POLICY FROM THE COASTAL
ACT. FURTHER EITHER THE AUTHOR
CITES A PC REPORT, WHICH
DISCUSSES UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN COASTAL AREAS. THREE OF THOSE
COASTAL AREAS DON'T EVEN HAVE A
COASTAL ZONE. OAN. FURTHER, THE
AUTHORS BILL HAS A MULTITUDE OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES SIMPLY
BECAUSE AN AREA HAS BEEN ZONED
FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR JUST
BECAUSE A DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY
EXISTS ON A SITE DOES NOT MEAN
THAT SITE IS DEVOID OF NATURAL
RESOURCES OR PUBLIC ACCESS
OPPORTUNITIES. RATHER IT MEANS
THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTS HAS
HAD ITS IMPACTS MITIGATE THE
REMOVAL OF MITIGATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SAME SITE IS
ILLOGICAL. NOW MOST IMPORTANT IS
THAT PUBLIC ACCESS GUARANTEES
ARE NOT FRIVOLOUS. 30 MINUTES.
THERE'S NO REASON TO REMOVE
REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC
CAN ACCESS OUR SHARED CORE
COAST. PUBLIC ACCESS IS NOT
ALWAYS AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE CEMENT
WALKWAY WITH HAND RAILINGS.
ULTIMATELY, THIS BILL TAKES AIM
AT THE WRONG TARGET AND I
ENCOURAGE QUESTIONS FROM THE
AUTHOR AND COMMITTEE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? GOOD AFTERNOON, ALEX
LIMA, ON BEHALF OF DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE AND THE CALIFORNIA
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. WE'RE STILL IN
OPPOSITION, BUT APPRECIATE
FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. HELLO. JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA. IN OPPOSITION,
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
NATALIE BROWN WITH THE PLANNING
AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THE LOS VALDEZ WITH
TASSEL AND ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE,
CALIFORNIA COASTAL PROTECTION
NETWORK, CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH
CANYON BACK ALLIANCE, CLEAN
EARTH FOR KIDS, ENVIRONMENTAL
CENTER OF SAN DIEGO, GREEN
FOOTHILLS, FOREST UNLIMITED,
NORTH COAST, RIVERS ALLIANCE,
ORANGE COUNTY, COASTKEEPER, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY, PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, WATERSHED
ALLIANCE OF MARIN, AND
OPPOSITION, UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS
DAN JACOBSON, REPRESENTING
SURFRIDER. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF
GROUPS ALSO IN OPPOSITION,
UNLESS AMENDED. SANTA CLARA
VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY, SMITH
RIVER ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, WEST
SONOMA COUNTY ALLIANCE,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, SAVE
THE SONOMA COAST AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER.
THANK YOU, ETHAN NAGLER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. WE'LL TURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. PATTERSON
, THANK YOU. MY COMMENTS CHANGE,
BASED ON THIS HEARING, BUT I
JUST WANT TO SAY THE ABSOLUTE
GALL OF A REGULATORY AGENCY TO
COME IN HERE AND LECTURE POLICY
MAKERS AND BRASHLY CORRECT THE
AUTHOR ON LEGISLATION IS
OFFENSIVE. IT'S NOT RIGHT. AND I
JUST THINK THAT JUST GOES TO
SHOW HOW THE REGULATORY AND
BUREAUCRACY ARE GETTING OUT OF
HAND IN THIS STATE. THE COASTAL
COMMISSION RECENTLY PREPARED A
129 PAGE REPORT FOR AN ADU THAT
BLOCKS ABOUT A HALF AN INCH OF A
COASTAL LINE FROM LIKE 300 YARDS
AWAY. AND IT'S WITH THAT KIND OF
BEHAVIOR IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE
HOUSES ON THE COAST. IT'S WHY
PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME HAVE TO
LIVE INLAND IN ORDER TO BE. AND
THEN THEY WORK ON THE COAST.
IT'S TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. AND
THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS NOT
PARTICIPATING IN OUR POLICY
MAKING TO HELP US BUILD HOUSING
ON THE COAST. SO I GOT TO SAY,
FIRST OF ALL, MR. ALVAREZ,
YOU'RE A BETTER MAN THAN ME, I
AM A COAUTHOR ON THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION AS WRITTEN AND I DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. I THINK A
LOT OF THE LEGISLATION COMING
OUT OF THIS BODY, I THINK IF ALL
WE DID IN CALIFORNIA, BY THE
WAY, I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
HOUSING COMMITTEE. I LOVE THIS
POLICY AREA. BUT IF ALL WE DID
IN CALIFORNIA WAS ALLOW HOUSING
WHERE HOUSING IS INTENDED TO BE
BUILT, WE WOULD SOLVE THE
HOUSING CRISIS, BUT INSTEAD WE
HAVE PIECEMEAL, PIECEMEAL,
PIECEMEAL HERE, PIECEMEAL THERE
TO TRY TO CREATE MORE SITES FOR
HOUSES. WHEN THE OVERALL ISSUE
STILL CONTINUES TO EXIST, WHICH
IS WE AREN'T BUILDING HOUSING
BECAUSE BECAUSE YOU PUT UP A
HOUSING PROPOSAL AND IT'S LIKE
YEARS AND YEARS, EVEN IF IT'S
MEANT FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND MY
OWN CITY. THERE WAS AN EIR
ADDENDUM BECAUSE AN APARTMENT
COMPLEX WAS GOING FROM 22 UNITS
AN ACRE TO 26 UNITS AN ACRE. IT
SLOWED DOWN THE PROJECT BY SIX
MONTHS. DURING THAT TIME,
INTEREST RATES PRACTICALLY
DOUBLED. AND THE PROJECTS. AND
THAT'S 100% AFFORDABLE UNIT, BY
THE WAY, 100% AFFORDABLE PROJECT
IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A SIDE
NOTE. SO IF WE GOT TO, WE GOT TO
GET SERIOUS ABOUT BUILDING
HOUSING ON THE COAST BECAUSE I
THINK A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN
JUST THE ELITE DESERVE TO LIVE
ON THE COAST. AND WITH THAT, IF
THIS BILL HAS NOT BEEN MOVED, I
WILL MOVE IT. AND I WON'T SPEAK
TO WHETHER MR. ALVAREZ IS A
BETTER MAN THAN YOU OR NOT. BUT
I WILL PASS IT TO MISS PELLERIN.
THANK YOU. AND, I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION HERE TODAY, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BILL IS
IT'S BASED OFF THE PREMISE THAT
THE COASTAL ACT IS BLOCKING
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, IT'S. BUT I
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS NEVER DENIED A
SINGLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT IN THE HISTORY, DO YOU
HAVE EXAMPLES OF HOUSING THAT
HAVE BEEN DENIED? WE DO. I DON'T
HAVE THEM WITH ME. I'LL MAKE
SURE TO GET THE REPORT TO YOU.
THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING
PUBLISHED IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
WEEKS, I WILL TELL YOU, AS
SOMEONE WHO, VOTED ON A LOT OF
LOCAL EIGHT YEARS ON THE CITY
COUNCIL IN A COASTAL REGION,
DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO TAKE
THE RISK OF GOING THROUGH A
PROCESS THAT IS COMPLETELY
SUBJECTIVE. THAT IS THE LAST
THING YOU WANT TO DO WHEN YOU'RE
ENGAGING IN BUILDING HOUSING.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, BECAUSE
OF ALL THESE AREAS WHERE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION COULD JUST
SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T, SOMEONE CAN
APPEAL, HOLDS UP THE PROJECT. NO
ONE WANTS TO GO INTO WITH THAT
UNCERTAINTY. AND SO WE'RE TRYING
TO CREATE CERTAINTY. IF YOU WHEN
YOU TALK TO FOLKS WHO WHO BUILD
AND YOU ANALYZE HOW BUILDING
HAPPENS, CERTAINTY IS A NUMBER
ONE THING THAT IS REQUIRED. AND
SO THE UNCERTAINTY AT THE
COASTAL REGION IS WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH ONE THING
THAT I'D LIKE TO CORRECT FROM
THE OPPOSITION. THIS ONLY ALLOWS
HOUSING TO BE BUILT WHERE
HOUSING IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO
BE BUILT BY CITIES, NOT ON
WETLANDS, NOT ON BLUFFS, ONLY
WHERE IT'S ZONED FOR HOUSING.
AND IT'S GOT TO BE MULTIFAMILY.
YOU CAN'T EVEN TAKE A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME AND DO THAT. AND SO,
I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE COAST.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO DO. IT'S TRYING TO CREATE
CERTAINTY FOR THE PROCESS. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
EXAMPLES OF DIRECT PROJECTS, BUT
I WILL BE PROVIDING YOU WITH
SOME EXAMPLES. I WOULD EVEN GO A
LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO SAY THAT
NOT ONLY DOES THIS BILL ONLY
APPLY TO PLACES WHERE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAVE DETERMINED THEY
WANT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, IT
ALSO ONLY APPLIES TO WHERE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION HAS ALLOWED
COASTAL JURISDICTIONS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO DESIGNATE FOR
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. SO THIS IS
SORT OF AN INFILL INFILL
PERSPECTIVE HERE. ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT THE DENIAL RATES
ARE SO LOW IN THE COASTAL ZONE
IS THAT DENIAL CAN COME AT THE
END OF A MANY YEAR PROCESS. I'M
GOING TO INVITE NEVADA TO SPEAK
NEXT ON THE TEN YEARS SHE SPENT.
WELL, EIGHT YEARS TRYING TO
TITLE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT DENIAL COULD HAVE COME
AT ANY POINT OR AT THE EIGHTH
YEAR. AND FOR MANY OF MY
MEMBERS, THEY WILL PULL PROJECTS
WELL BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY GET TO
THE DENIAL. IF YOU'LL ACCEPT THE
TERME OVERTURN APPROVAL AS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE DENIAL, I
CAN GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE OF A
PROJECT IN VENICE WHICH HAS AN
LOOP THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD
BE REMOVING FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR
THIS BILL. THIS PROJECT IS ABOUT
30 UNITS. THE COASTAL COMMISSION
OVERTURNED THE APPROVAL OF THAT
PROJECT BY THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, ON THE SOLE BASIS THAT
IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN
THE STATE HAD CHOSEN TO DO THAT,
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A
VIOLATION OF THE STATE'S HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. AND BUT FOR
THE EXISTENCE OF THE COASTAL
ZONE OR THE COASTAL ACT WOULD
ALSO LIKELY BE ILLEGAL IN THAT
PARTICULAR CASE. THAT'S A SHAME,
BECAUSE THE THREE INDIVIDUAL LOW
INCOME FAMILIES THAT ARE GOING
TO LIVE IN THE BUILDING, THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUILT NOW
BECAUSE OF AN UNCERTAIN AND
YEARS LONG PROCESS TO CONTINUE,
WROTE IN TO SUPPORT THAT PROJECT
BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO GET
FOR SALE HOME OWNERSHIP OPTIONS
AS A RESULT OF OTHER STATE
LEGISLATION, NAMELY SB THREE
3330 BY SENATOR SKINNER. THIS IS
A THIS IS A THIS IS A THIS IS A
PROBLEM THAT THIS QUESTION OF
DENIAL IS A PROBLEM MORE
ACTUALLY REGULATORY Kò OF THE
FACT THAT THE PROCESS IS SO
CHALLENGING FOR DEVELOPERS THAT
THEY SIMPLY CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT,
THAT REALLY IS THE BILL, I
THINK, IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
AND THE PROBLEM THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE TRYING TO
SOLVE FOR AND AGAIN, TO
MODERNIZE IN OTHER AREAS OF LAW
IS NOT JUST HERE. THANK YOU. I
THINK THE QUESTION HAS BEEN
ANSWERED AND I THINK I'M JUST
SPOILED LIVING IN SANTA CRUZ.
YOU KNOW, I'M ABSOLUTELY PRO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE COAST.
AND WE'RE DOING IT AS THE CITY
OF SANTA CRUZ IS BUILDING THE
HOUSING WE NEED. AND, AND
THEY'RE DOING IT UNDER THE
EXISTING, RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEIR LOCAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AND THEIR, THEIR BUILDING
DEVELOPERS. SO I'M REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT JUST THE
CHIPPING AWAY AT THE COASTAL
ACT, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SUCH
AN IMPERATIVE DOCUMENT TO
PROTECT OUR COASTLINE, WHICH IS
REALLY ONLY 1% OF OUR LAND HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. SO I THANK YOU,
MISS PELLER, AND MR. FLORA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND, MR.
ALVAREZ, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD, I SHARE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE THE FRUSTRATION OF
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AND I
, I THINK WE BOTH KNOW WHETHER
WE WANT TO BE HONEST RIGHT NOW,
WHAT THE INTENT OF THE
AMENDMENTS ARE. IT'S BASICALLY
TO KILL THE BILL TO MAKE IT
RELATIVELY, JUST IS WHAT IT IS.
AND I AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE IN
SECTION B OF THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, SAYS ON PRIME AG
LAND, RIGHT. GUESS WHOSE
DISTRICT HAS A LOT OF PRIME AG
LAND MINE? AND SO IF WE'RE NOT
USING THE ENTIRE STATE TO BUILD
WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, WHICH IS WHAT
WE TALK ABOUT A LOT, AND IN THIS
OAN AMENDMENT, WE DON'T WANT TO
PAVE OVER PRIME AG LAND. MY
CITIES HAVE TO SPRAWL. WE'RE NOT
GOING UP. WE'RE GOING OUT. WHICH
IS ALSO AN ISSUE, BUT WE'RE
PAVING OVER AG LAND THAT WILL
NEVER GET BACK. AND SO I JUST I
GET SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED,
LIKE MY COLLEAGUE, I DO NOT HAVE
A COASTAL DISTRICT AND THE I'M
JUST GOING TO HOLD MY COMMENTS,
IT'S IN REMARKABLY FRUSTRATING.
BUT THAT ONE SENTENCE IN PRIME
AG LAND IRRITATES THE HECK OUT
OF ME BECAUSE WE ARE FORCED TO
GROW MORE, AND EVERY TIME WE
EXPAND, EVERY TIME WE SPRAWL,
WE'RE PAVING OVER DIRT THAT
FEEDS PEOPLE, AND EVENTUALLY
WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF DIRT
TO PAVE OVER. MISS FRIEDMAN.
THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING IF THE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COASTAL
COMMISSION COULD TALK ABOUT THAT
VENICE DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE BIT,
AND MAYBE EXPAND ON THAT. I
THOUGHT THAT THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION WAS
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
HAVE IS THE COASTAL COMMISSION
ALSO WEIGHING IN ON DESIGN
STANDARDS IN THESE AREAS?
BECAUSE I HAD ALWAYS ASSUMED
THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAD THE
AUTHORITY OVER. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. I THINK A COUPLE
POINTS ON THAT FRONT. FIRST, I
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THIS
INSTANCE, THE PHRASE OVERTURN
APPROVAL, I THINK, IS BEING
MISUSED AND MISCONSTRUED. IN
THIS INSTANCE, THIS WAS A LOCAL
PROJECT THAT WAS APPEALED TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE
COASTAL COMMISSION HAD TO REVIEW
THE APPEAL. AND IN CHOOSING TO
REVIEW THE APPEAL, THAT IS WHAT
IS BEING DESCRIBED AS BEING
TANTAMOUNT TO A DENIAL. AND IN
REALITY, THE COMMISSION IS
LOOKING AT THE PROJECT MORE
CLOSELY IN THIS INSTANCE WITH
THE VENICE PROJECT. THE COASTAL
ACT DOES CONTAIN POLICIES WHICH
PROTECT AND THEY LOOK OUT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. AND
THROUGH THAT LENS, THEY LOOK AT
THE AFFORDABILITY OF
NEIGHBORHOODS AND AS IT RELATES
TO A NATURALLY AFFORDABLE
COMMUNITY LIKE VENICE, THAT
HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF
AFFORDABILITY. AND SO IN AN
INSTANCE WHERE A PROJECT WOULD
REPLACE EXISTING NATURALLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH
PREDOMINANTLY HIGH END MARKET
RATE HOUSING, WHICH, TO BE CLEAR
IN THE COMMISSION'S LIVED
EXPERIENCE, IS WHAT WE SEE WITH
DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS. SO WAIT,
I WANT TO JUST BE CLEAR. SO
YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE
WAY THAT IT WAS DESCRIBED BY THE
PROPONENTS OF THE LEGISLATION
WAS THAT THE THAT THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL, I
DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS IN THE
PROCESS RIGHT NOW WAS ABOUT
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, BUT
WHICH TO ME, IN MY MIND IS
DIFFERENT THAN AFFORDABILITY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S
STRICTLY ON THE BASIS OF
AFFORDABILITY AND NOT ON ANY
TYPE OF, FIT IN TERMS OF NUMBER
OF UNITS OR DESIGN OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT? THE COMMISSION IS
CONSIDERING THE PRODUCT THAT'S
BEING PROPOSED AND ITS BROADER
EFFECT ON THAT COMMUNITY WHO CAN
AFFORD TO LIVE THERE. IT'S
PRETTY IT'S A REALLY CLEAR
QUESTION. IS THE CONSIDERATION
ONLY ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY OF
THE UNITS OR SOMETHING BEYOND
THAT, IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN OF
THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, IT THE
COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE
STRUCTURE AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED
AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT
WITH THE IMPACTS ON THE
COMMUNITY AND WHO CAN LIVE THERE
. I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING
MUCH CLARITY IN YOUR ANSWER,
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF
WHO CAN LIVE IN A BUILDING OR
WHETHER YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE
DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.
SO ARE YOU LOOKING IS THE
COASTAL COMMISSION LOOKING AT
THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IN
VENICE? THE COMMISSION IS
LOOKING AT THE DESIGN AND
INTERPRETING THAT DESIGN THROUGH
TO ITS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
POLICY, TO CONSIDER THE
ACCESSIBILITY OF THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD TO FOLKS WHO HAVE
HISTORICALLY LIVED THERE. IS THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES DOING DESIGN
REVIEW AT THE PLANNING PROCESS
AS WELL? ON THAT, ON THAT
PROJECT, I IMAGINE THEY ARE. YES
AND THEN SO YOU SO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT IT CAN
HAVE A DIFFERENT, OPINION ABOUT
THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT THAN
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF. I
DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR OUR
COMMISSIONERS, BUT I CAN SAY
THAT THE COASTAL ACT DOES
INCLUDE THESE POLICIES WHICH
ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO
INTERPRET THIS PROJECT AND OPINE
ON IT THROUGH A LENS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. YES. AND
SO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GOES
BEYOND THEN THE QUESTION OF
AFFORDABLE K¾T AND ALSO TO THE
ACTUAL PHYSICAL DESIGN OF THE
BUILDING. YES. HOW DOES THAT
BECOME AN HOW DOES THAT BECOME.
I MEAN, I'M GENUINELY CURIOUS,
HOW DOES THAT BECOME AN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUE?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. DEPENDING ON
HOW A PROJECT IS DESIGNED, CAN
VASTLY IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE
SIZE AND OTHER FEATURES OF IT,
THE AFFORDABILITY OF THAT
PROJECT AND AS A RESULT, ITS
IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHO CAN LIVE IN
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT I THOUGHT
THAT WE WERE JUST ASKING ABOUT
WHETHER THE AFFORDABILITY WAS A
SEPARATE QUESTION FROM THE
DESIGN. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF IT
WAS DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY, SO
DOES THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT
HAVE AFFORDABLE UNITS? DOES IT
HAVE DEED RESTRICTED UNITS? I
CAN'T SPEAK TO THE PARTICULARS
OF THIS PROJECT THAT WAS RAISED
BY THE PROPONENTS. SO YOU'RE
SAYING THAT EVEN IF IT HAD DEED
RESTRICTED, IF IT WAS 100% DEED
RESTRICTED, 100% AFFORDABLE, YOU
WOULD STILL LOOK AT THE DESIGN
OF THE BUILDING IF THE
COMMISSION IF THE PROJECT WAS
APPEALED TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE
DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IN TERMS
OF THE IMPACT ON NATURE, IN
TERMS OF THE PROJECT'S
CONSISTENCY WITH A LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, IF IT'S RELEVANT, OR
THE COASTAL ACT. SO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION THEN HAS DESIGNED
STANDARDS FOR EACH OF THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS. BECAUSE I KNOW
THE PLANNING, I KNOW THAT THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING
COMMISSION PROBABLY HAS DESIGN
STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE REVIEWING
WHEN THEY REVIEW THEIR
APPLICATIONS. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN
DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE
SEPARATE FROM THE CITY, THE
COASTAL ACT DOES NOT ESPOUSE
SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS. THEN
ON WHAT BASIS WOULD YOU BE
EVALUATING THE DESIGN? IF YOU
DON'T HAVE A DESIGN STANDARD ON
THE BASIS OF THE PROJECT'S
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COASTAL
ACT, OR IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HAS IT, IT'S CERTIFIED LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM. SO YOU'RE
REVIEWING THE DESIGN OF A
PROJECT BASED ON ON DESIGN
STANDARDS THAT SORT OF ON WHAT
BASIS WOULD YOU WOULD YOU LOOK
AT THAT? IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HAS A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, THE FUNCTION OF THAT
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IS TO TAKE
THE POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT
AND APPLY THEM MORE CONCRETELY
AND IN THE VEIN OF A DESIGN
STANDARD, TO PROJECTS THAT ARE
WITHIN THAT LOCAL JURISDICTION.
WHEN A PROJECT COMES TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION ON APPEAL, IT
IS INTERPRETING OR IT'S
ANALYZING THAT PROJECT AGAINST
THE POLICIES OF THAT LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, WHICH I SAID
ARE MORE SPECIFIC, AND ALSO THE
POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT,
WHICH ARE INHERENTLY MORE
GENERAL BECAUSE THEY'RE INTENDED
TO HAVE A STATEWIDE APPLICATION
IN. OKAY, WHAT WHEN YOU SAY
DESIGN, WHAT I MEAN, ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT THE FINISHES OF A
BUILDING, THE MASSING OF A
BUILDING? WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY
EVALUATING? IN OTHER WORDS,
WOULD YOU SEND THE APPLICANT
BACK AND SAY THAT YOU WANT THE
BUILDING REDESIGNED TO MATCH
YOUR STANDARD? AGAIN, I CAN'T
SPEAK TO OUR TO OUR COMMISSION.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM,
BUT AT THE COMMISSION, WHEN THE
PROJECT COMES BEFORE IT
CONSIDERS ALL THE ASPECTS OF
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND THAT
THAT COULD INCLUDE ITS PHYSICAL
DIMENSIONS, IT COULD INCLUDE
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE FINISH. I
THINK, IS THAT'S A DIFFERENT
STORY ALTOGETHER. AND THE
COMMISSION IS LOOKING AT,
THROUGH THE LENS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. WHAT THE
IMPACTS OF THAT PRODUCT WILL BE
ON THE CHARACTER OF THAT
COMMUNITY. OKAY. WELL, LOOK, YOU
KNOW, I RESPECT THE WORK OF THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, AND I
UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS ALWAYS TO
MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE COAST,
MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT, YOU
KNOW, HAS SOME SORT OF, I MEAN,
I'M ASSUMING THAT WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO SAY IS. WELL, I
THOUGHT ORIGINALLY THAT IT WAS
SORT OF AT THE MASS WAS
APPROPRIATE TO, I DON'T KNOW,
YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT
PEOPLE CAN SEE THE COAST, THAT
THEY COULD ACCESS THE COAST. BUT
IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE
BUILDING IS TOO FANCY FOR THE
AREA AND THAT THAT'S THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION AND
NOT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL THAT WEIGHS
IN WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
THAT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH,
THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT,
WHAT, CRITERIA YOU WOULD BE
USING TO MAKE THOSE
DETERMINATIONS. AND I SAY THAT
AS A FORMER LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
OFFICIAL, A FORMER COUNCIL
MEMBER AND A FORMER OFFICIAL ON
A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IN MY CITY
AS WELL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T
HAVE A SET STANDARD, HOW DO YOU
EXPECT ANY DEVELOPER TO BE ABLE
TO DESIGN WITHIN THE STANDARD,
YOU KNOW, I'M STRUGGLE A BIT
WITH THIS BECAUSE I CERTAINLY
THINK THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, AN
IMPORTANT ROLE FOR THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, BUT I DO WORRY THAT
WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING, THAT
SAYING THAT A BUILDING IS SORT
OF TOO FANCY FOR. I KNOW VENICE
VERY WELL. VENICE? I WOULD NEVER
DESCRIBE VENICE AS BEING
NATURALLY AFFORDABLE AT THIS
POINT. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY
SOME PARTS THAT ARE AND, YOU
KNOW, HOPEFULLY THERE'S PEOPLE
WHO ARE STILL LIVING THERE WHO,
YOU KNOW, WHO CAN, WHO'VE BEEN
THERE A LONG TIME. AND I KNOW
THE STRUGGLE OF THE COMMUNITY TO
MAINTAIN ITS TRADITIONAL
IDENTITY AS A FUNKY BEACH TOWN,
GIVEN THE PRICE OF HOUSING. AND
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO ADD MORE HOUSING SO
THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN LIVE THERE
SO THAT IT'S NOT SO THAT THAT
HOUSING IS LESS COMMODIFIED TO
WHERE ONLY THE MOST ELITE PEOPLE
CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD TO RENT, I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS BUILDING
IS DEED RESTRICTED OR NOT, BUT
IF IT'S A DEED RESTRICTED, 100%
AFFORDABLE BUILDING AND I DON'T
KNOW, IS IT A IT'S GOT
AFFORDABLE UNITS BUT NOT 100%
AFFORDABLE. AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK
TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT
THAT'S BEING BROUGHT UP. BUT
REGARDLESS, I, I, THERE'S A LOT
OF REALLY OF PEOPLE I RESPECT
WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS
LEGISLATION. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS BEING
GIVEN OVER, WHATEVER NEW,
STREAMLINING IS BEING GRANTED
THROUGH THE BILL, DOESN'T
INTERFERE WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S ROLE OF BEING ABLE
TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO COASTAL,
RESOURCE REYES, CERTAINLY TO
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. YOU
KNOW, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ME. AND I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH
THE WITH THE PROPONENTS OF THE
BILL AND SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE
SOMETHING IS ZONED FOR HOUSING
DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ACTUALLY IS
SOMETHING THAT TODAY SHOULD HAVE
HOUSING ON IT. THERE ARE THERE
ARE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT ARE
15, 20 YEARS OLD OUT THERE,
ZONING THAT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED
IN MANY YEARS. CONDITIONS CHANGE
. AREAS MIGHT BECOME A LOT MORE
INTENSE THAN THEY HAD EXPECTED
20, 30 YEARS AGO. AND THERE
MIGHT BE A REAL A REAL
COMPELLING NEED TO PRESERVE
EXISTING GREEN FIELDS THAT MAY
BE ZONED MULTIFAMILY BUT MAYBE
HAVE NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED ON OR
WERE DEVELOPED ON IN A STRUCTURE
WAS REMOVED, AND NOW ARE NATIVE
HABITATS COME BACK. AND I THINK
THAT JUST SAYING THAT THAT
SHOULD NEVER BE EVALUATED FOR
PRESERVATION. I THINK THAT
THAT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR ME.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY,
BUT I HAVE REAL CONCERNS OVER A
LOT OF WHAT'S IN THIS BILL. AND
I THINK THERE DOES NEED TO BE
SOME DISCRETION FOR AREAS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY OPEN SPACE,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN
ZONED MULTIFAMILY. SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT I'LL BE LOOKING
FOR. AND FURTHER INCARNATIONS OF
THIS. AND I DO AGREE THAT
REMOVING NATURALLY, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND REPLACING IT WITHOUT
ANYTHING, THAT THOSE SAME PEOPLE
CAN MOVE IN BACK INTO IS A
PROBLEM. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS. YOU KNOW, THIS SORT OF
DEFINITION OF THE COASTAL
COMMISSION DOING DESIGN REVIEW
AND BUILDINGS THAT GOES BEYOND
MASSING AND SCALE OR GOING ON
LOOKING AT BEYOND WHAT'S LOOKING
AT WHAT'S ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE,
AND PUTTING OTHER STIPULATIONS
ON A PROJECT THAT MAYBE HAS IS
DEED RESTRICTED OR REPLACING
UNITS WITH DEED RESTRICTED UNITS
, I'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT
THIS AS IS MOVE FORWARD. BUT I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY SO
YOU CAN CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION. BUT I, I WOULD
LIKE YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO
UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS, WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE ON
SOME OF THESE OPEN SPACES, ETC,
AND ON NATURALLY OCCURRING,
HOUSING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MARKET
RATE, AFFORDABLE OLDER HOUSING
AS WELL. THANK YOU, MISS
FRIEDMAN. MR. WOULD THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, I'M PLANNING TO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY. MR.
ALVAREZ, I DO HAVE A QUESTION
FOR YOUR WITNESS, BECAUSE I
THINK, AS I HEARD YOU, YOU SAID
IN THAT VENICE DEVELOPMENT,
THERE WERE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN
THAT VENICE DEVELOPMENT. DID I
HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? YOU DID I
YOU KNOW, I SAT ON A PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR FOUR YEARS. I SAT
ON A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FOR
EIGHT YEARS, I WOULD IMAGINE
THAT THIS PROJECT, CONSIDERING
ITS SENSITIVITY, WOULD HAVE GONE
THROUGH A SEQUEL ANALYSIS. IT
DID SO WE HAVE ALL OF THE
PLANNING PROCESS, PLUS A SEQUEL
ANALYSIS, AND AT THE VERY END WE
CAN SOMEONE CAN APPEAL TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, THAT WAS THE
COASTAL COMMISSION DID NOT WEIGH
IN, DURING THE SEQUEL ANALYSIS
OR WAS NOT CONSIDERED DURING THE
SEQUEL ANALYSIS. I'M I'M REALLY
PUZZLED BY THIS BECAUSE IT AS A
FORMER LOCAL ELECTED, I'M MY
BLOOD PRESSURE IS GOING THROUGH
THE ROOF HERE RIGHT NOW, QUITE
FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE
YOU'VE JUST TAKEN LOCAL CONTROL
AND A LOCAL CONTROL PROCESS AND
THROWN IT OUT THE WINDOW. AND I
REPRESENT LIKE IN THE NORTH
COAST. AND I RESPECT THAT, THAT
THERE ARE PEOPLE AND
ORGANIZATIONS THAT I HAVE A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. BUT
I, I, I LOOK AT LIKE THE CITY OF
EUREKA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH HAS A
LOCAL, COASTAL PLAN THAT EXTENDS
VERY FAR INLAND, QUITE FRANKLY.
AND SO WHAT WHAT I'M HEARING
TODAY IS THAT THAT LOCAL LOCAL
AGENCIES COULD APPROVE SOMETHING
THAT MIGHT BE HALF A MILE OR
MORE WITHOUT ANY VISUAL IMPACT
TO THE COAST, COULD APPEAL A
PROJECT TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION COULD SAY, NAH, WE
DON'T LIKE IT FOR WHATEVER
REASON. AND I, I, I TAKE OFFENSE
TO THAT TOO, AND I'M VERY, VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT INCURSION,
WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH
A WHOLE LITANY OF THINGS AND YOU
ADD THE OVERLAY OF THE FACT THAT
WE DESPERATELY NEED HOUSING, WE
ARE NOT BUILDING HOUSING IN THE
STATE AT A AT A RATE THAT IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE NEED. SO I
AM YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO GET
SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ON THIS,
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY A
PROBLEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. WOOD. MR. ALVAREZ, I MEAN,
Ó, MR. MURATSUCHI Þ. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I'VE BEEN LISTENING
TO ALL THE COMMENTS, AND, ALWAYS
WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE
AUTHOR AND, YOU KNOW, AND
RESPOND TO HIS THOUGHTFUL
APPROACHES BY TRYING TO BE
THOUGHTFUL AND IN RETURN, I
GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING. WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO DISPEL
THE NOTION THAT, YOU KNOW,
COASTAL COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
BUILDING HOUSING. I WHENEVER
I'VE ALWAYS TOLD SENATOR WIENER,
YOU KNOW, COME ON DOWN TO
REDONDO BEACH, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT REDONDO BEACH
IN MY DISTRICT IS, HAS HAS SOME
OF THE HIGHEST HOUSING DENSITY,
OF ANY COASTAL COMMUNITY IN THE
STATE. AND SO I THINK THERE ARE
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE TRYING TO,
BUILD MORE HOUSING. AND SO BUT
THE QUESTION HERE IS, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'RE TRYING TO
I MEAN, THE CASE LAW THAT'S
CITED IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
IS THE BALLOON BILL THAT WAS
PASSED IN 2018. IT ALL SEEMS TO
REQUIRE VIA THAT THAT, YOU KNOW,
DEVELOPERS, NEED TO COMPLY, NOT
ONLY WITH THE DENSITY BONUS LAW,
BUT ALSO WITH THE COASTAL ACT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I WASN'T
CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE
AMENDMENTS WERE GOING TO BE
REMOVING ALL THE OPPOSITION. IT
SOUNDS LIKE THERE STILL ARE
CONCERNS IN TERMS OF YOUR BILL
ATTEMPTING TO JUST OVERRIDE THE
COASTAL ACT IN TOO MANY PARTS OF
THE STATE, AND THAT'S MY CONCERN
THAT, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER WE HAVE
THESE ONE SIZE FITS ALL
STATEWIDE, YOU KNOW, BILLS, THAT
, THAT THIS, DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THERE ARE SENSITIVE COASTS,
ALL, YOU KNOW, RESOURCES THAT
NEED PROTECTION THÀNH FROM ALL
OF THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE
JUST SALIVATING TO BUILD ALL THE
FOR, YOU KNOW, ALL THE EXPENSIVE
HOUSING ON THE COAST. AND SO
THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE IS A
NEED FOR THE COASTAL ACT TO BE
ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, DEFEND AND
PROTECT THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR MOST
BEAUTIFUL, OUR MOST SACRED
RESOURCE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WHAT MAKES THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA SO UNIQUE? AND SO,
YOU KNOW, I, I. YEAH. I WANTED
TO SEE WHERE THE AMENDMENTS
WERE, HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE
RESPONDED TO BY BY THE, BY MANY
OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THAT I
ALSO, YOU KNOW, HOLD IN HIGH
REGARD. AND, IT SOUNDS TO ME
LIKE, IT'S STILL THE ESSENCE OF
THE BILL IS STILL TRYING TO
OVERRIDE THE COASTAL ACT RATHER
THAN TRYING TO HARMONIZE THE
COASTAL ACT. AND THAT'S WHY I
CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR BILL. THANK
YOU. CHÁVEZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. AND IN CLOSING,
JUST SOME RESPONSE, MR. CHAIR.
IF THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU,
FIRST, I WANTED TO START BY
THANKING YOU FOR ALLOWING THIS
CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT
WE HEAR THOSE PERSPECTIVES, AS
OPPOSED TO NOT ENGAGE IN
CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
ALL OUR PERSPECTIVES ARE FROM
THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF
CALIFORNIA. SO. SO THANK YOU ALL
FOR PARTICIPATING. I TRULY
APPRECIATE THAT, IF I CAN TRY TO
START MY WAY BACKWARDS WITH OUR,
COLLEAGUE WHO SPOKE AT THE END
HERE, WE ARE TRYING TO BE VERY
CLEAR AND HARMONIZING THE ACT
AND, AND CALLING OUT
SPECIFICALLY THE SENSITIVE
RESOURCES AND THE IMPORTANT
RESOURCES THAT WE BELIEVE ARE
PART OF THE ACT. YOU CANNOT THIS
BILL DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BUILD
IN THOSE SENSITIVE AREAS. IT'S
VERY IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO THAT.
IT IS ONLY ALLOWED WHERE HOUSING
IS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT. THAT'S
VERY, VERY CLEAR. SO NOBODY
WANTS TO TOUCH, ANY OF THOSE
SENSITIVE AREAS WHERE THERE'S A
WETLANDS OR, BLUFFS OR WHERE SEA
LEVEL RISE IS A CONCERN. THAT'S
ALL WE TALK ABOUT, ALL THAT IN
THE BILL. WE DON'T WANT TO TOUCH
THAT. SO THAT'S FIRST AND
FOREMOST. SECOND, THIS WOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED FOR THOSE, YOU SAID
THE WORD, I THINK SALIVATING
DEVELOPERS. YOU HAVE TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THIS
DENSITY BONUS LAW. OTHERWISE YOU
CANNOT GET ANY OF THESE,
BENEFITS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN
THIS LAW. AND SO IF YOU DON'T
BUILD THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
GUESS WHAT? MAYBE THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO BUILD THEIR, THEIR
HIGH INCOME CONDOMINIUMS AS
OPPOSED TO BUILDING SOME
AFFORDABLE. SO OUR GOAL IS THAT
WE SHOULD GET SOME AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON THE COAST. AS
DEVELOPERS CHOOSE TO DEVELOP,
THEY SHOULD ALSO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO THAT'S AS
IT RELATES TO PROTECTIONS. THE
PROTECTIONS REMAIN. AND IF WE
WANT TO HAVE FURTHER
PROTECTIONS, LET'S TALK ABOUT
WHAT THOSE ARE TO OUR COLLEAGUE
FROM GLENDALE WHO TALKED ABOUT
SHE. THAT WAS I THINK, ONE OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS
OR PIECES OF THIS CONVERSATION
THAT THAT WAS HAD, BECAUSE THAT
IS MY CONCERN. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
WITH THIS, WHAT'S ADDED IN TERMS
OF SENSITIVE COASTAL RESOURCE
AREAS, WHICH WOULD ALSO ALLOW
THESE, THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO
FOR THERE TO BE AN APPEAL BASED
ON, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DEFINE
WHAT A HIGHLY SCENIC AREA IS,
WHAT A HIGHLY SCENIC AREA IS TO
ONE OF US IS PROBABLY DIFFERENT
TO SOMEBODY ELSE. AND YET, WITH
THIS AUTHORITY, IF THEY FEEL
THAT A PROJECT IMPACTS A HIGHLY
SCENIC AREA, THEY CAN PULL THAT
THAT CAN BE APPEALED. AND THE
PROJECT THEN WILL GET STALLED
AND IT'LL GO ON THROUGH THE
PROCESS. AND PERHAPS, YOU KNOW,
DELAYED AND MAYBE NOT EVEN
BUILT. SO I'M FOR PROTECTING,
BUT LET'S DEFINE WHAT THAT IS.
LET'S NOT GIVE SOME ARBITRARY
AUTHORITY TO A BODY THAT CHOOSES
WITH WITH WITH NO REAL DIRECT
GUIDANCE, AS YOU HEARD IN THIS
EXCHANGE EARLIER ABOUT SOMETHING
RELATED TO, WHETHER THE
CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY GETS
CHANGED BECAUSE HOUSING,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS BUILT,
THAT SHOULD NEVER BE SOMETHING
THAT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY. SO
ALL I'M SAYING IS, I THANK YOU
FOR THE CONVERSATION. I WELCOME
AND ALSO TO MISS FRIEDMAN. I
THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO
MAKE SURE THAT GREENFIELDS, TO
THE EXTENT OUR BILL CURRENTLY
ISN'T PROTECTED, WE'RE GOING TO
GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AND
MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS
PROTECTED. BUT AS IT RELATES TO
THE AMENDMENTS TODAY, WHICH WE
WILL TAKE AGAIN, WE NEED TO BE
VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS
AUTHORITY AND POWER WE'RE GIVING
TO THIS BODY, WHICH ALREADY HAS
A LOT OF AUTHORITY AND POWER,
AND HOW THEY CAN PULL AND
POTENTIALLY PREVENT PROJECTS
FROM EVER BEING BUILT IN AREAS
THAT THEY CONSIDER HIGHLY
SCENIC, THAT THEY CONSIDER, THAT
ARE SPECIAL COMMUNITIES WITH
VISITOR DESTINATION AREAS,
NEIGHBORHOODS, ENTIRE
NEIGHBORHOODS IS WHAT THE
LANGUAGE SAYS THAT ARE
SIGNIFICANT VISITOR. THAT'S LIKE
EVERY BEACH TOWN IN ALL OF SAN
DIEGO. THAT'S PROBABLY EVERY
BEACH TOWN IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SO WE GIVE THEM THAT
AUTHORITY. THEY COULD PULL A
PROJECT WHO IS LOOKING TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THOSE
AREAS. BECAUSE OF THIS SECTION
THAT IS BEING DRAFTED TODAY. SO
AGAIN, I REALLY SINCERELY
APPRECIATE, I BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS HOW POLICY MAKING SHOULD
HAPPEN. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT LIKE GOING, GOING AND
WORKING AND WORKING IT OUT AND
THEN BRING IT COOKED PRODUCT,
THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL TO ME. I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS. AND,
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL
TAKE, I WOULD APPRECIATE. AND I
VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR.
ALVAREZ. AND, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN AN
IMPORTANT AND LIVELY AND
NECESSARY CONVERSATION, ONE THAT
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE
HAS HAD AS ROBUSTLY IN A VERY
LONG TIME, I HEARD MANY, MANY
THINGS THAT I HAVE MANY FEELINGS
ABOUT, WHEN I THINK OF DESIGN
AND I HEAR THE PHRASE CHARACTER
OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S VERY
TRIGGERING FOR ME AS A RENTER,
WHEN I HEAR THE COAST IS OUR
MOST VALUABLE ASSET, I THINK OF
ALL THE PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE
WHO CAN NO LONGER LIVE HERE OR
LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK,
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE
HOUSING STOCK AND HOUSING
INFRASTRUCTURE TO MATCH THE
NEEDS OF OUR STATE. THIS IS A
COMPLICATED CONVERSATION. IT'S A
COMPLICATED POLICY ISSUE. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
RECOGNIZING THOSE COMPLICATIONS
AND WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE
TO CONTINUE TO NAVIGATE THESE
CONVERSATIONS SO THAT WE CAN
FIND THAT SPACE THAT'S IN THE
INTEREST OF, OF ALL CALIFORNIANS
, BOTH PROTECTING OUR NATURAL
RESOURCES, BUT MAKING SURE THAT
WE'RE EVER COGNIZANT OF THE
GROWING NEED FOR HOUSING
EVERYWHERE AND THE ROLE THAT
EVERYBODY HAS TO PLAY IN
PARTICIPATING IN THAT. SO THANK
YOU, MR. ALVAREZ, FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
IT HAS A Dð PASS RECOMMENDATION.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED. BRIAN. AYE, BRIAN. AYE
FLORA. FLORA. AYE. BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN NOT VOTING. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. AYE. HOOVER CHOLERA.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI. NO.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. NOT VOTING.
WIX. WOOD. WOOD. AYE. NEEDS ONE
MORE. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'RE GOING TO
GO TO MISS BONTA. AND THEN WE
ARE GOING TO TURN TO TWO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE'RE GOING
TO JUMP THE LINE. I'M GIVING YOU
A HEADS UP. I'M GOING TO JUMP
THE LINE WITH, MR. MURATSUCHI
AND MISS FRIEDMAN, BUT WANT TO
RESPECT MISS BONTA'S TIME. SHE'S
BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME.
SECOND. MAY BEGIN WHEN READY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH ME, WITH
MY OFFICE ON THIS BILL. AB 2851
IS AN IMPORTANT BILL FOR MY
COMMUNITY. AND IT'S PERSONAL. MY
DISTRICT IS HOME TO A METAL
SHREDDING FACILITY, SHREDDER
WASTE FROM VEHICLES AND LARGE
APPLIANCES CONTAINS HEAVY METALS
LIKE LEAD, COPPER, ZINC, CADMIUM
AND OTHER HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS.
FOR DECADES, SUCH OPERATIONS
HAVE RESULTED IN MANY TOXIC
FIRES POLLUTING OUR COMMUNITIES.
EVEN THOUGH PRIOR LEGISLATION
CALLED ON DTSC TO PLACE STRONG
REGULATORY STANDARDS ON METAL
SHREDDERS. NUMEROUS INCIDENTS
HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR
ENVIRONMENTS SINCE 2018, THE
LOCAL AIR DISTRICT HAS ISSUED 13
NOTICES OF VIOLATION TO THE
METAL SHREDDER IN MY DISTRICT.
THIS METAL SHREDDER FACILITY HAS
ALSO BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
LAWSUITS FOR VIOLATING EMISSIONS
RULES LOCATED WITHIN A MILE FROM
THIS METAL SHREDDING FACILITY
ARE 18 DAYCARE CENTERS, TEN
PARKS, EIGHT SCHOOLS, FOUR
SENIOR CENTERS, AND TWO
HOSPITALS. WHILE MOTIVATED TO
WORK ON THIS ISSUE FROM THE
EXPERIENCES IN MY BACKYARD, THIS
ISN'T JUST A PROBLEM IN MY
DISTRICT. SIMILAR TO REFINERIES,
METAL SHREDDING FACILITIES ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY LOCATED IN
OUR MOST VULNERABLE AND
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, ALREADY
SUFFERING FROM HIGHER AMOUNTS OF
POLLUTION EXPOSURE KNOWN TO
CAUSE NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS.
AB 2851 IS AN ESSENTIAL FIRST
STEP IN ACCOUNTABILITY. IT
REQUIRES DTSC AND THE LOCAL AIR
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO DEVELOP
AND IMPLEMENT FACILITY WIDE
FENCE LINE AIR MONITORING AT
METAL SHREDDING FACILITIES, AND
IF THE MONITORING INDICATES A
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON AIR
QUALITY OR PUBLIC HEALTH, THE
LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
WILL ISSUE A CRUCIAL COMMUNITY
NOTIFICATION. THÀNH AB 2851 WILL
PUSH FORWARD THE STATE'S
COMMITMENT TO ADVANCING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY
FOR THOSE WHO ARE IMPACTED THE
MOST BY TOXIC EMISSIONS, WITH ME
TODAY TO SPEAK MORE ON THIS BILL
ARE MRS. MARGARET GORDON FROM
THE WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS PROJECT AND ALAN ABS
FROM THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. MISS
GORDON, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY?
HI. THANK YOU. AS SHE SAID, THIS
MAY BE IN HER BACKYARD, BUT IT'S
IN MY FACE EVERY DAY. YES MA'AM.
THREE FREEWAYS. EIGHT 8980 THE
PORT OF OAKLAND, THE, TRUCK
DISTRIBUTION CENTERS AND
WAREHOUSES, THE Ã BART RUNNING
20, 20 HOURS A DAY. THAT'S ALL
IN OUR FACE. AND ALSO A POST
OFFICE DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ACROSS THE STREET FROM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THIS IS A
TO HAVE THIS 19TH CENTURY
OPERATION STILL IN A COMMUNITY
AND HAVING A HISTORY OF FIRES
AND A HISTORY OF NOT FOLLOWING
THEIR OWN PERMITS OVER THE MY
TIME LIVING IN WEST OAKLAND,
THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED. THEY
ARE FENCELINE MONITORING. COOL.
GOOD BUT THAT WILL SOLVE THE
PROBLEM OF THEM BEING IN AN
URBAN AREA WHERE THIS INDUSTRY
NEEDED TO BE SOMEPLACE ELSE,
VERY MUCH REMOTE. THERE'S NO
NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF A BUSINESS
TO BE IN OUR COMMUNITIES. I
DON'T CARE WHEREVER WHERE PEOPLE
LIVE AT, IT'S NO MORE. IT'S NOT
A NECESSITY. THEY WANT TO MAKE
MONEY. LET THEM MAKE MONEY
SOMEPLACE ELSE. WHERE IS THAT?
THEY THEY ARE NOT CAUSING HEALTH
ISSUES TO OUR COMMUNITY, SUCH AS
WEST OAKLAND. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ALAN
ABS AND I'M THE LEGISLATIVE
OFFICER FOR THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. AND
IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO FOLLOW
MISS MARGARET IN TESTIMONY. OUR
STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE
MEMBER. OUR STAFF HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH THE MEMBER FROM THE
BEGINNING TO GET TO A BILL THAT
ACCOMPLISHES WHAT WE REALLY ALL
WANT, AND THAT IS TO HAVE METAL
SHREDDERS IN CALIFORNIA OPERATE
BETTER, TO NOT ALLOW LIGHT
FIBROUS MATERIAL AND ASSOCIATED
TOXIC PARTICULATE PAST THE
FACILITY BOUNDARY, AND TO NOT
HAVE THOSE FACILITIES CATCH ON
FIRE, AND TO HAVE A NOTIFICATION
PROCEDURE THAT INFORMS THE
COMMUNITY WHEN THOSE STANDARDS
AREN'T BEING MET. AS THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES,
THERE'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
ASSOCIATED WITH TRYING TO
IMPROVE METAL SHREDDER
OPERATIONS, BUT DESPITE MAKING
PROGRESS, THERE'S STILL RECENT
INSTANCES DEMONSTRATING THAT
THERE'S MORE TO BE DONE
SPECIFICALLY WITH ENSURING THAT
PARTICULATE MATTER AND TOXIC
EMISSIONS ARE STOPPED AT THE
FACILITY BOUNDARY AND DON'T HARM
THE PUBLIC. IF NO ONE KNOWS WHEN
EMISSIONS CROSS THE BOUNDARY,
THEN THE PUBLIC CAN'T BE
APPROPRIATELY INFORMED AND THE
FACILITY HAS NO INCENTIVE TO
OPERATE BETTER. AS THE ANALYSIS
ALSO NOTES, DTSC WITH THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE BAY AREA, AQMD
CONDUCTED AN AIR MONITORING
STUDY AND COLLECTED LIGHT
FIBROUS MATERIAL OUTSIDE THE
SCHNITZER FACILITY BOUNDARY FOR
A MULTI YEAR PERIOD ENDING IN
2023 AND THERE WAS ALSO A
FACILITY IN REDWOOD CITY NEAR
SEVERAL HOSPITALS, PARKS AND
SCHOOLS THAT RECEIVED AN
ABATEMENT ORDER TO CLEAN UP OFF
SITE TOXIC POLLUTION. AB 25 OR
2851 ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT PEOPLE
LIVING, WORKING AND GOING TO
SCHOOL NEAR METAL SHREDDING
FACILITIES AND, IF NEEDED,
INFORM THEM OF ANY ADVERSE
HEALTH IMPACTS AND IS CONSISTENT
WITH ACTIONS TAKEN IN THE PAST.
ONLY AFTER ELEVATED CONCERNS
FROM THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS
TOPIC AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO PARTNER WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND HOPEFULLY
DTSC TO FURTHER THIS BILL. AND
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY PERSONS IN THIS HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL? HEY, GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS CHRIS
ROSA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL ACTION
FUND, NRDC IS PROUD TO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHRISTINA MOHABIR WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SCOTT
ANDREWS WITH THE WEST OAKLAND
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS PROJECT
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
TWO MINUTES EACH. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RYAN FLANAGAN
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE WEST COAST
CHAPTER OF THE INSTITUTE OF
SCRAP RECYCLING INDUSTRIES. AND
WE HAVE AN OPPOSING, LESS
AMENDED POSITION. I'D FIRST LIKE
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US. THUS
FAR, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO
FENCELINE MONITORING OR
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATIONS. WE DO
HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS
SPECIFICS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THOSE PROGRAMS, WHICH WE
DETAIL IN OUR LETTER. IN SHORT,
WE BELIEVE THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF
THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD BE PLACED
WITH THE LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AND AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS. IN
CONSULTATION WITH DTSC, AIR
DISTRICTS HAVE THE NECESSARY
EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE
RELATING TO THESE MONITORING
SYSTEMS, ALLOWING FOR MORE
TIMELY, ACCURATE AND EFFICIENT
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE BILL'S
OBJECTIVES. WE BELIEVE THE
INFORMATION SHOULD BE COLLECTED
ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC
PROTOCOLS AND METHODOLOGIES, AND
THAT THE MONITORING RESULTS BE
ACCURATELY INTERPRETED ACCORDING
TO OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND ACCEPTED THRESHOLDS
PERTAINING TO HUMAN HEALTH RISK.
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATIONS MADE ON
THE BASIS OF SPECULATIVE,
INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR
MISINTERPRETED INFORMATION DO
NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN
BRIAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON AB 2851,
MY NAME IS TONY CUEVAS, AND I'M
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF AB
2051, UNLESS IT IS AMENDED TO
ADDRESS ISERIES CONCERNS. I'M AN
EMPLOYEE AT AC RECYCLING, I'M A
MANAGER AT THE SHREDDER AND THE
PORT OF LOS ANGELES, I HAD READ
THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY AWU
LOCAL 26, IN OPPOSITION OF THE
BILL, AND I SUPPORT ILWU. 26
POSITION. WHILE I AM NOT A
MEMBER OF THE ILWU LOCAL 26, I
OVERSEE ILWU 26 MEMBERS WORKING
AT AC RECYCLING, I HAVE BEEN
EMPLOYED BY RECYCLING SINCE THE
YEAR OF 2000. I STARTED AS A
MEMBER OF THE ILWU LOCAL 26
MYSELF, DOING ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE AT THE SHREDDER
BEFORE WORKING MY WAY UP TO
BECOMING THE SHREDDER MANAGER, I
LED THE TEAM TO BUILD THE NEW
SHREDDER IN THE FACILITY IN
2006. MY GRANDFATHER STARTED
WORKING AT ESTÁ RECYCLING IN THE
60S TILL HE RETIRED IN THE IN
THE LATE 80S, MY FATHER IS
CURRENTLY WORKING AT THE
FACILITY. HE'S BEEN WORKING AT
S¼, FOR 46 YEARS NOW, HE'S ALSO
A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL 26. MY
FATHER IS A CRANE OPERATOR AND
HAS BEEN, FEEDING THE SHREDDER
FOR OVER 30 YEARS NOW, MANY OF
MY EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS
FRIENDS HAVE WORKED AT THE AT
THE SHREDDER AT TÊ, AS A
RECYCLING, PROVIDES GOOD PAY
BENEFITS, PROVIDES VERY SAFE
WORK ENVIRONMENT, AS A
RECYCLING, AS A RECYCLING,
WORKERS ARE HEALTHY. I HAVE NO
ISSUES WORKING IN THE
ENVIRONMENT AT THE SHREDDER, MY
FAMILY IS VERY HEALTH ORIENTED,
AND WE WOULD NOT WANT FAMILY
MEMBERS WORKING THERE IF IT
WASN'T UNHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. WE
HAD ESTÁ RECYCLING. CONSIDER
OURSELVES ENVIRONMENTALISTS. WE
PROVIDE A SERVICE OF RECYCLING
END OF LIFE PRODUCTS, THAT
OTHERWISE WILL LITTER THE
STREETS AND FILL UP OUR
LANDFILLS. THE NEW METAL
PRODUCTS WE USE TODAY CANNOT BE
MADE UNLESS WE RECYCLE THE OLD
PRODUCTS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO THE COMMENTS MADE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA METAL SHREDDERS ARE
LOCATED IN DESPERATE
NEIGHBORHOODS, S¼ RECYCLING
OPERATES THREE IN CALIFORNIA AND
ARE ALL LOCATED IN INDUSTRIAL
AREAS. JUST TWO MINUTES. ALL,
OKAY. WHILE I'M NOT CONCERNED
ABOUT THE RESULTS FROM THE
TESTING, THE AIR AROUND THE
FACILITIES, I AM CONCERNED THAT
THE TESTING WILL NOT ACCURATELY
AND WILL CAUSE FALSE TEST
RESULTS, GIVING THE COMMUNITIES
FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF THE
OPERATIONS AT OUR FACILITY.
AFTER ALL, WE ARE LOCATED IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE LARGEST PORT
SURROUNDED BY OIL REFINERIES.
THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE,
WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
CONCERNS THIS BOND. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU SO MUCH
. AND I APPRECIATE THE, YOU
KNOW, ALL PARTIES COMING TO THE
TABLE TO REALLY BE ABLE TO WORK
ON THIS BILL, I THINK THE
WEDNESDAY, FIRST WEEK OF SCHOOL,
IN OAKLAND, WHERE THERE WERE
CHILDREN HEADED TO, HEADED TO
PRESCHOOL, KINDERGARTEN AND HIGH
SCHOOL. WHAT THEY WOKE UP TO IN
WEST OAKLAND WAS RED SKIES AND
AIR THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO
BREATHE. THAT AIR WE KNOW FILLED
WITH PARTICULATE MATTER AND
TOXIC CHEMICALS, IS A CARCINOGEN
THAT CAUSES THOSE BEAUTIFUL
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND ELDERS
TO DIE FROM CANCER WHEN EXPOSED
FOR TOO LONG. IT IS NOT AN
UNREASONABLE THING WITHIN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO BE ABLE
TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE OUR
FACILITIES THAT PRODUCE
POTENTIALLY AND KNOWINGLY
DANGEROUS CHEMICAL MATERIAL FOR
OUR COMMUNITIES. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. CAN I ASK SOMETHING? YOU
KNOW, WE DON'T USUALLY DO THAT,
BUT I'M I'M DOWN FOR IT. MISS
MARGARET, YOU GOT TO SAY, CARB
CARBON, BAY AREA AIR QUALITY.
WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS IS A AB 6.7 SITE. WE
ARE IN A WE'VE BEEN IN A PLAN
GOING ON FIVE YEARS TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS REDUCE EMISSIONS. THIS
FIRE ADDED EMISSIONS I HEAR YOU.
ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S LET'S LET'S
TALK ABOUT THE CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE FIRE. YES MA'AM. I
UNDERSTAND OUR WHOLE HEARTEDLY.
YOU'LL NEED TO WORK. YOUR FAMILY
NEEDS TO, TO FOR YOU TO PROVIDE
FOR YOUR WORK. BUT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A FIRE. A MAJOR FIRE THAT
HAPPENED IN THIS COMMUNITY
BECAUSE OF SENATE-TV STEEL.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS MARGARET.
SO WE HEAR FROM A LOT OF CAPITAL
FOLKS AND A LOT OF LOBBYISTS.
OFTEN, WE DON'T OFTEN HEAR FROM
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY
IMPACTED, WHO MADE TIME OUT OF
THEIR DAY TO COME UP HERE. SO
Y'ALL JUST GET USED TO IT IN
THIS COMMITTEE, WE'RE GRATEFUL
FOR THE TESTIMONY, AND WE'LL BE
BACK. I LOOK, I LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS I
HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION, IT
SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT WE'RE
NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST FRONT
LINE MONITORING. WE'RE AGAINST
THE MONITORING BECAUSE WE THINK
IT'LL SHOW POSITIVE. BUT IT'S
NOT ALL OUR FAULT. AND THAT'S A
COMPLICATED POSITION TO BE IN,
BECAUSE I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS
PAYING THE PRICE. NONETHELESS,
THIS BILL ENJOYS A DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL Þ? DO WE
HAVE ANY MOTIONS FOR MOTION BY
BAUER-KAHAN, SECONDED BY
FRIEDMAN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO APPROPRIATE. BRIAN. HI,
BRIAN. AYE. FLORA. FLORA ARE NOT
VOTING. BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. AYE. HOOVER. CHOLERA
CHOLERA. AYE. MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI AYE. PATTERSON.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN AYE. WICKS.
WOOD. WOOD. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT
. THANK YOU, WE'RE GOING TO JUMP
TO MR. MURATSUCHI AB 2870. THIS
BILL.
OKAY. THE MOST IMPORTANT.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR.
MURATSUCHI. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THIS
ACCOMMODATION, I AM HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2870, A BILL THAT
SEEKS TO PROTECT FRONT LINE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES BY DIRECTING CARB TO
STRIKE A BETTER BALANCE BY
ELIMINATING AVOIDED METHANE
EMISSIONS FROM THE CARBON
INTENSITY CALCULATION FOR FUELS
DERIVED FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE.
THESE MASSIVE DAIRY METHANE
FARMS ARE THE BIGGEST POLLUTERS
IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, WHICH
ALREADY HAS THE WORST AIR
QUALITY IN THE NATION. ASIDE
FROM METHANE, THESE INDUSTRIAL
DAIRY FARMS PRODUCE NITROUS
OXIDE, AMMONIA AND PARTICULATE
POLLUTION, AS WELL AS POISONING
THE WATER AND LAND FOR LOW
INCOME AND IMMIGRANT VALLEY
RESIDENTS. AB 2870 WILL END THE
STATE STATE'S PRACTICE OF
INCENTIVIZING DAIRY FARMS TO
INCREASE THEIR METHANE POLLUTION
IN HERE TO SPEAK, AND ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS MEASURE IS
DAVID RODRIGUEZ. MR. CHAIR, YOU
TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT
HEARING ENOUGH FROM THOSE THAT
ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED. WE HAVE
MR. RODRIGUEZ, A RESIDENT FROM
PLANADA, CALIFORNIA, WHO WILL
SHARE HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
AND TO BE FOLLOWED WITH PHOEBE
SEATON, CO-DIRECTOR OF THE
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. ABSOLUTELY.
TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS DAVID
RODRIGUEZ. I AM A FOUNDING
MEMBER OF CENTRAL VALLEY
DEFENDERS FOR CLEAN AIR AND
WATER. I RESIDE IN PLANADA,
CALIFORNIA, POPULATION 4164.
RESIDENTS IT'S IN MERCED COUNTY
AND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A
SEVERELY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
EVEN BEFORE LAST YEAR'S FLOODS.
I HAVE LIVED IN PLANADA SINCE
1960. FOR YEARS WE HAVE ENDURED
PUTRID ODORS FROM LOCAL DAIRY
THAT'S LESS THAN A MILE AWAY
FROM OUR TOWN. HILLCREST DAIRY
ARRIVED IN 2002 WITH OVER 3000
COWS. THEY NOW HAVE OVER 8000
COWS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO
EXPAND AGAIN AND THIS TIME THEY
ARE IN TALKS WITH DAIRY DIGESTER
DEVELOPERS AND 2012, A GROUP OF
PLANADA RESIDENTS COMPLAINED TO
THE MERCED COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO NO AVAIL. I HAVE
CALLED THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
AND THEY TOLD ME THEY DON'T
RESPOND TO DAIRY ODORS. I'VE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO
WASHINGTON, D.C, AND I SPOKE
WITH THE STAFF OF THE UNITED
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY AND THE STAFF OF SENATOR
FEINSTEIN, THE STAFF OF
REPRESENTATIVE COSTA, AND THE
STAFF OF SENATOR PADILLA. I HAVE
BEEN ON NUMEROUS CALLS WITH CARB
REPRESENTING PERTAINING TO
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CAUSED BY
DAIRIES AND THE PRODUCTION OF
GAS FROM DIGESTERS, AND I HAVE
TESTIFIED AT SEVERAL CARB
WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS ABOUT THE
PROBLEMS WITH LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARDS. I HAVE JOINED OTHER
MEMBERS OF CENTRAL VALLEY
DEFENDERS IN A MEETING WITH THE
CHAIR, LIANE RANDOLPH, FROM
CARB'S IN AUGUST 24TH, 2023, IN
PIXLEY, CALIFORNIA, TO THAT'S
ANOTHER SMALL TOWN THAT'S BEEN
AFFECTED BY DAIRIES SURROUNDING
THEIR COMMUNITY. ALONG WITH THE
PROLIFERATION OF DAIRY
DIGESTERS. WE REYES TIME AND
TIME AGAIN THAT THE CONDITIONS
IN OUR COMMUNITIES ARE GETTING
WORSE AS DAIRIES ARE GETTING
BIGGER AND DAIRY DIGESTERS ARE
INSTALLED. I'VE LEARNED FROM MY
FRIENDS IN TULARE AND OTHER
AREAS THAT DAIRY DIGESTERS DON'T
HELP. THEY ONLY MAKE THINGS
WORSE. I KNOW THAT PLANADA DOES
NOT WANT HILLCREST TO GET ANY
BIGGER, AND I KNOW I DON'T WANT
A DIGESTER THERE AND IT WOULD
ENCOURAGE HILLCREST TO GROW MORE
AND MORE DESPITE OUR ONGOING
ADVOCACY FROM LOCAL TO THE
FEDERAL LEVEL. BUT MORE THAN
ANYWHERE AT CARBS ARE LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS ARE BEING IGNORED. IT
IS BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY IS SO
POWERFUL IS THAT APATHY TOWARDS
PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO LIVE IN
RURAL AREAS, OR IS IT BOTH? CARB
CONTINUES TO IGNORE OUR CONCERNS
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF DAIRIES
PASSING THAT TWO MINUTES AND
DIGESTERS. THE STATE HAS
ENCOURAGED PRODUCTION OF AND
FAILED TO REGULATE EXCESSIVE
DAIRY, MANURE POLLUTION AND THE
EXPENSE OF AIR, WATER AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. THE GOAL OF LCFS
WAS TO REDUCE CARBON INTENSITY
OF FUELS IN CALIFORNIA, SO WHY
ARE WE SEEING IT CAUSE MORE
POLLUTION? THANK YOU SIR, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU DAVID, THE LOW
CARBON FUEL STANDARDS,
ACCOUNTING TACTIC OF AVOIDED
METHANE CREDITING FOR GAS
DERIVED FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE IS
BAD POLICY. IT'S BAD
TRANSPORTATION POLICY. IT'S BAD
AGRICULTURAL POLICY. AND IT'S
VERY, VERY BAD ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE POLICY. AS YOU'VE HEARD,
AVOIDID METHANE CREDITING MAKES
FACTORY FARM GAS APPEAR MUCH,
MUCH, MUCH CLEANER THAN ZERO
EMISSION ELECTRICITY. THAT ALONE
SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO CALL THIS
POLICY INTO QUESTION. THERE IS
NOTHING CLEAN ABOUT THE FUEL
ITSELF. IT BURNS JUST LIKE
CONVENTIONAL FUEL AND EVEN IF IT
WERE CLEAN BURNING, WHICH IT IS
NOT, FACTORY FARM GAS IN THE
LCFS DISPLACES LITTLE IF ANY
FOSSIL FUEL. IT SERVES PRIMARILY
AS A CREDIT GENERATOR SO THAT
FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES CAN
PURCHASE CREDITS TO OFFSET THEIR
ONGOING POLLUTION. FACTORY FARM
GAS ACCOUNTS FOR ONLY ABOUT 1%
OF FUELS IN THE LCFS, BUT 15 TO
20% OF CREDITS GENERATED IN
SHORT, THE LCFS EXPORTS
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION TO THE
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR IN THE
FORM OF POLLUTING TRADE.
POLLUTION TRADING CREDITS. THE
ROLE OF AVOIDED METHANE
CREDITING IN UNDERMINING THE
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION AIMS OF THE
STATE IS ENOUGH OF A REASON FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO REFORM. THIS
PROGRAM AVOIDED METHANE,
CREDITING IGNORES THAT MANAGING
LIQUEFIED MANURE IN MASSIVE
MANURE PITS THAT MAXIMIZE
METHANE METHANE EMISSIONS IS A
CHOICE, NOT AN INEVITABILITY,
AND EVEN ENCOURAGES THAT
PRACTICE. DAIRIES THAT HANDLE
THEIR MANURE IN DRY HANDLING
SYSTEMS CAN REDUCE MANURE
METHANE EMISSIONS BY MORE THAN
90, A MISSOURI FARMER DESCRIBES
THE DAMAGED. CALIFORNIA'S LCFS
PROGRAM IS CAUSING IN THE
MIDWEST BY CREATING A LUCRATIVE
MARKET FOR FACTORY FARM GAS,
REWARDING THE BIGGEST AND MOST
POLLUTING OPERATIONS, WHILE
FURTHER STACKING THE CARDS
AGAINST FAMILY FARM LIVESTOCK
PRODUCERS LIKE ME THAT ARE DOING
THINGS DIFFERENTLY. THE PERVERSE
INCENTIVES THAT AVOIDED METHANE
EMISSIONS CREATES IN THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IS ENOUGH TO
WARRANT REFORM OF THIS POLICY,
AVOIDED METHANE EMISSIONS
CREDITING ENCOURAGE AND
INCENTIVIZES THE CONCENTRATION
OF COWS AND LIQUEFIED MANURE IN
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NEAR
LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. SINCE CARB SIGNALED THAT
IT WOULD CHANGE ITS LCFS RULES
TO INCLUDE AVOIDED METHANE,
CREDITING THE NUMBER OF COWS IN
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HAS
INCREASED, ESPECIALLY AT THE
LARGEST FACILITIES. THIS MEANS
MORE POLLUTION AND MORE PUTRID
ODORS. THE HARM CREATED BY
AVOIDED METHANE CREDITING AND
LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR IS REASON ENOUGH TO
RETHINK AND REFORM THIS POLICY.
AVOIDED METHANE. CREDITING IS
NOT JUST BAD POLICY. IT'S AS THE
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
PUT IT BLUNTLY ON A RECENT BLOG,
A DISASTER AB 2870 PUTS US BACK
ON THE RIGHT TRACK TOWARD
CLIMATE TRANSPORTATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. WE ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR
THIS MEASURE? AFTERNOON. IS THAT
ON? YEAH. TASHA NEWMAN, ON
BEHALF OF EARTH JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
KAYLA KARIMI WITH THE CENTER ON
RACE, POVERTY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT IN SUPPORT. FORMER
FRESNO COUNTY FOR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, SIR LESLIE MARTINEZ,
ORGANIZER IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY, IN SUPPORT, PLEASE. SOY
MARIA GOMEZ REPRESENTA EL
CONDADO DE FRESNO. PIDO SU
APOYO. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS
ALICIA RIVERA. I'M FROM MERCED,
AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON. JENNIFER I'M
PROUD TO REPRESENT LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUPPORT AND
ALSO ASKED TO DO A ME TOO OF
SUPPORT FROM CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA 350 SACRAMENTO 350
HUMBOLDT AND ELDERS CLIMATE
ACTION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
SUSAN MADINET W STRATEGIES HERE
ON BEHALF OF ANIMAL LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHRISTINA MOHABIR
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ALEXIS ROMERO FROM
SANGER, CALIFORNIA. AND IN
SUPPORT. I AM CHRISTINA
VELAZQUEZ FROM PIXIE,
CALIFORNIA. AND I REALLY WOULD
APPRECIATE YOUR GUYS'S SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BEVERLY
WHITFIELD AND I'M FROM PIXLEY,
CALIFORNIA. AND I WOULD
APPRECIATE A I VOTE THANK YOU
KNOW, BREAST RODOLFO ROMERO. YO,
REPRESENTO LA COMUNIDAD DE
SANGRE CALIFORNIA. LA THANK YOU,
SIR. ANTHONY MONTES DE APOYO A
LA UNION DE LA TODOS LOS. THANK
YOU SIR. SOY BERTA DEL VALLE,
CENTRAL PIDIENDO SU APOYO. MARIA
SOTELO. ESTOY AQUI PARA ESTOY LÀ
SUR LA SENORA MARIA SOTELO.
ESTOY PIDIENDO SU APOYO SOY
VENGO DE FRESNO. GRACIAS GOOD
AFTERNOON, VERONICA GARIBAY. ON
BEHALF OF FRESNO BUILDING
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, KATIE
VALENZUELA ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AIR QUALITY
COALITION, AS WELL AS VALLEY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, RAQUEL MASON
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
ALSO ASKED TO REGISTER SUPPORT
FOR STRATEGIC CONCEPTS AND
ORGANIZING AND POLICY EDUCATION.
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY LOS ANGELES AND
THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M ARI
EISENSTADT, ALSO WITH SIERRA,
AND I WAS ASKED TO REGISTER
SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT, ASIAN
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK
AND CENTRAL COAST ALLIANCE,
UNITED FOR A SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY. THANK YOU NATALIE BROWN
WITH THE PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION LEAGUE ALSO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
REBECCA MARCUS, REPRESENTING THE
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND
SUPPORT, MICHELLE CANLAS, UNION
OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU, JOHN WHITE,
WITH THE CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHUCK. ANY
FORMAL OPPOSITION? I'M SURE. TWO
MINUTES EACH. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MICHAEL BOCCADORO, ON BEHALF OF
AG ENERGY, I'VE BEEN WORKING IN
THIS SPACE FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS
AND TRYING TO FIND INCENTIVES TO
GET DAIRY DIGESTERS BUILT. SO
DAIRY INDUSTRY CAN REDUCE
METHANE. IT'S ONE OF THE LEAD
NEGOTIATORS ON 1383 WHEN IT
PASSED THE LEGISLATURE IN 2016
ON REDUCING REDUCING METHANE IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN
DO IN THE SHORT TERME TO ADDRESS
CLIMATE CHANGE. SO WE HAVE TO BE
ASKING OURSELVES THE QUESTION,
WHY ARE WE GOING TO ELIMINATE
DAIRY DIGESTERS, WHICH ARE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL THIS STATE
AND THIS COUNTRY ARE
IMPLEMENTING TO REDUCE METHANE
IN THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR? DAIRY
DIGESTERS, RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF
THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
THAT WE OPERATE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. THEY ARE RECOGNIZED
ALSO NOT ONLY COST EFFECTIVELY,
BUT AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE,
EFFECTIVE GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION TOOL WE HAVE. WHY ARE
WE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE IT?
DAIRY DIGESTERS UNEQUIVOCALLY
IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY. YOU HEARD SOME TESTIMONY
A FEW MOMENTS AGO THAT WOULD
SUGGEST OTHERWISE. NOTHING COULD
BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. WE
KNOW THIS. THEY REDUCE METHANE
IN MASSIVE AMOUNTS. THEY IMPROVE
ODOR AND NUISANCE, REDUCE
HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND OTHER
POLLUTANTS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY. THEY'RE CREATING
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS, WHICH IS
A CLEAN BURNING, A LOW EMISSION,
CLEAN BURNING TRANSPORTATION
FUEL THAT IS REPLACING DIESEL
AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS PROVIDING
SIGNIFICANT CRITERIA. POLLUTANT
REDUCTIONS IN THE VALLEY. MANY
OF OUR FLEETS THAT DELIVER,
FEED, DELIVER MILK TO THE
PROCESSOR ARE CONVERTING FROM
DIESEL TO RUN ON CLEANER BURNING
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS THAT
PROVIDES TREMENDOUS AIR QUALITY
BENEFITS. AND THEN FINALLY, THE
DAIRY SECTOR IS WELL ON ITS WAY
TO ACHIEVING THE 40% REDUCTION
SOUGHT BY 1383. WE HAVE TO ASK
OURSELVES, SEVEN YEARS IN,
HALFWAY TO THE 2030 DATE TO
ACHIEVE A 40% REDUCTION. WE'RE
THROWING OUT A VERY SUCCESSFUL
PROGRAM THAT IS GOING TO LEAD TO
NOT ONLY NO ADDITIONAL DIGESTERS
BEING DEVELOPED, BUT THE LIKELY
OUTCOME THAT MANY OF THE
EXISTING OPERATING DIGESTERS IN
THE STATE WILL CEASE TO OPERATE.
SO WE'RE NOT ONLY LOSING
ADDITIONAL METHANE REDUCTION,
WE'RE LOSING MAYBE AS MUCH AS
2.2 MILLION METRIC TONS OF CO2
EQUIVALENT REDUCTION FROM THE
DIGESTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
OPERATING THIS BILL IS
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. THERE'S
BEEN A THREE YEAR PROCESS GOING
ON AT CARB TO LOOK AT THE LCFS.
THIS BILL JUST DISCOUNTS, THROWS
THAT OUT AND COMES UP WITH AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOLUTION.
APPRECIATE YOU. THANKS VERY
MUCH. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SAM WADE
WITH THE COALITION FOR RENEWABLE
NATURAL GAS. WE'RE THE NATIONAL
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE RNG
INDUSTRY HEADQUARTERED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE OVER 400
MEMBER COMPANIES ACROSS THE RNG
SUPPLY CHAIN. WE OPPOSE AB 2870
BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS
CALIFORNIA'S WELL FUNCTIONING
EXISTING METHANE EMISSIONS
REDUCTION STRATEGY. A LOT OF
IMPORTANT PRIOR WORK WOULD
SIMPLY BE THROWN OUT OF THE
WINDOW BY THE SPILL. DEVELOPING
A FRAMEWORK FOR DAIRY DIGESTERS
IN THE STATE REQUIRED MORE THAN
TEN YEARS OF INPUT FROM ACADEMIC
EXPERTS. EXTENSIVE PUBLIC
PROCESS AT CARB AND CDFA, AND
SMART LEGISLATION IN THE FORM OF
SENATE BILL 1383, WHICH
CURRENTLY GUARANTEES LOW CARBON
FUEL STANDARD CREDITING TO DAIRY
PROJECTS. CALIFORNIA'S LCFS IS A
FIRST OF THE NATION'S STRATEGY
TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND
IT'S WORKING. THANKS TO THE
LCFS, OUR AIR IS CLEANER. WE ARE
REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, BREAKING OUR
DEPENDANCE ON FOREIGN OIL AND
LOWERING COSTS THROUGH MARKET
COMPETITION. THE LCFS HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN DRIVING DEPLOYMENT
OF RNG PROJECTS AT DAIRIES AND
METHANE EMISSION LEVELS FROM
MANURE MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
ARE GOING DOWN AS INTENDED. THE
US EPA HAS SUPPORTED DAIRY
DIGESTERS FOR MORE THAN 20
YEARS, AND THE AG STAR PROGRAM
AND HIGHLIGHTS THE CALIFORNIA
LCFS AS A SUCCESS STORY ON THEIR
WEBSITE. AB 2870 HURTS. RATHER
THAN HELPS THE STATE'S EFFORTS
TO REDUCE METHANE, IT TELLS
CLEANTECH INVESTORS, DAIRY
OWNERS AND PROJECT DEVELOPERS
WHO HAVE COMMITTED PRIVATE
CAPITAL TO THESE LONG LIVED
ASSETS THAT THE STATE'S
FRAMEWORK CAN'T BE TRUSTED, AND
THAT A DECADE LONG WORK TO
DEVELOP THIS CURRENT STRATEGY
WAS MEANINGLESS. THIS MATTERS
BECAUSE THESE VOICES HAVE
PREVIOUSLY PROMOTED THE LCFS
NATIONWIDE AS A MODEL FOR OTHER
STATES TO FOLLOW. JUST THIS
YEAR, NEW MEXICO AND OTHER MAJOR
DAIRY STATE ADOPTED THE POLICY
BASED ON THE SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE
THEY'VE SEEN FROM CALIFORNIA SO
FAR. LCFS PROPONENTS HAVE ALSO
BEEN ABLE TO GET LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED IN STATES THAT
PRODUCE 40% OF US MILK PRODUCT,
FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING
SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE IN OTHER
LARGE DAIRY STATES WOULD BE THE
FASTEST WAY TO DEAL WITH DAIRY
METHANE MANURE EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE. CALIFORNIA'S
LEADERSHIP ON PRACTICAL CLIMATE
SOLUTIONS IS IMPORTANT. WE MUST
NOT WAVER AT THIS CRITICAL
JUNCTURE, JUST AS WE'RE
BEGINNING TO SEE RESULTS. OVER
$2 BILLION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
CAPITAL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO
THESE PROJECTS. ALL THAT
PROGRESS WOULD BE PUT IN
JEOPARDY SHOULD AB 2870 BE
ENACTED AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN ON
EARTH DAY. LET'S CONTINUE TO GO
FORWARD RATHER THAN BACKWARD ON
CUTTING GREENHOUSE GASES IN THIS
STATE. PLEASE DON'T UPEND THIS
IMPORTANT AND WELL-FUNCTIONING
EFFORT TO CONTROL DAIRY, MANURE,
METHANE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE
? GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNIFER
HAMILTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HYDROGEN BUSINESS COUNCIL
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. MCKINLEY
THOMPSON MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF
THE BIOENERGY ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION, MR.
CHAIR CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE
TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. MATT ROMANOFF, NEIL PAPPAS AND
ASSOCIATES HERE ON BEHALF OF
LAND O LAKES AND OPPOSITION.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS STEPHEN
FENAROLI WITH THE CALIFORNIA
FARM BUREAU IN OPPOSITION. CHRIS
GROGAN, ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES IN OPPOSITION. DENNIS
ALBIANI, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
GRAIN AND FEED AND PACIFIC EGG
AND POULTRY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR JASON BRYANT, ON BEHALF OF
WESTERN UNITED DAIRIES AND
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE IN OPPOSITION
. HELLO, MR. CHAIR, KRISTIN
OLSON REPRESENTING MONARCH
BIOENERGY IN OPPOSITION.
PRISCILLA, KUDOS HERE. ON BEHALF
OF THE REST OF PROPANE GAS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, JOHN MOFFATT, ON
BEHALF OF MILK PRODUCERS COUNCIL
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
OPPOSITION. STEVE CARLSON FOR
ATHENS SERVICES, WHERE LOS
ANGELES BASED RECYCLING AND
WASTE HANDLING COMPANY, IN
OPPOSITION. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON,
RYAN KENNEY ON BEHALF OF CLE
ENERGY IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TRICIA
GERINGER WITH AGRICULTURAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, VÀ,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. GOOD
AFTERNOON. TAYLOR OCEAN ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA DAIRIES,
INC, IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, KATIE DAVIS WITH THE
DAIRY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA
OPPOSED. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TURN TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MR. HOOVER, THANK YOU.
I WANTED TO JUST ASK A COUPLE
QUESTIONS HERE, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE FIRST IS, YOU KNOW,
WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH WITH
THIS BILL IS THAT WE PROBABLY
HANDLE DAIRY IN THE CLEANEST WAY
OF, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE OF ANY
STATE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I
GUESS, IS IT A BIT
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR THIS
LEGISLATION OR TRY TO EXPLAIN TO
ME WHY IT'S NOT
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WHEN WE ARE
POTENTIALLY PUSHING, YOU KNOW,
THESE ANIMALS OUT OF THE STATE
TO CONTINUE PRODUCING DAIRY AND
A LESS CLEAN WAY, AND ALSO
OBVIOUSLY HURTING OUR OWN DAIRY
INDUSTRY. BUT, I'M JUST HELP ME,
HELP ME KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT
A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU COULD HOW
THIS HOW THIS HELPS US MEET OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. CERTAINLY, MR.
HOOVER, THIS IS NOT A ANTI-DAIRY
BILL, THIS IS A BILL THAT'S
CALLING ON CARB TO RECOGNIZE
THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
SIGNATURE, PROGRAMS IN FIGHTING
CLIMATE CHANGE SHOULD NOT BE
INCENTIVIZING THE PRODUCTION OF
METHANE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A
COMPLICATED SITUATION, TO SAY
THE LEAST. WE WANT TO
INCENTIVIZE DAIRY FARMERS TO
CAPTURE THE METHANE BEING
EMITTED FROM THE MANURE THAT
COMES FROM FROM THE COWS AT OUR
DAIRIES. UNFORTUNATELY VÆ CALVES
CARBON INTENSITY SCORE FOR, YOU
KNOW, THE POINT OF THE LOW
CARBON FUEL STANDARD PROGRAM WAS
TO INCENTIVIZE CLEAN FUELS. BUT
AS, MISS SEATON, TESTIFIED
EARLIER, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, THE
AN ELECTRIC CAR THAT'S CHARGED
WITH SOLAR PANELS GETS A LCFS
CARBON INTENSITY SCORE OF ZERO.
THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT
WE'RE ALL ASPIRING TO. BUT TODAY
, THE AVERAGE CARBON INTENSITY
SCORE FOR FUELS DERIVED FROM
DAIRY DIGESTER PROJECTS IS
NEGATIVE TWO HUNDRED AND 70. WHY
IS A PROGRAM THAT WAS SUPPOSED
TO INCENTIVIZE CLEAN FUELS,
INCENTIVIZING THE PRODUCTION
THÀNH OF METHANE? THAT IS NOT
ONLY, YOU KNOW, SCREWING UP THE
BASIC INTENT OF THE LCFS PROGRAM
TO INCENTIVIZE CLEAN FUELS, BUT
MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE THAT YOU HEARD IN THIS
COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT
JUST ABOUT FIGHTING CLIMATE
CHANGE. IT'S ABOUT THE AIR AND
WATER POLLUTION OF THE PEOPLE
THAT LIVE IN THESE COMMUNITIES.
AND SO CARB NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE
GUYS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT
JUST ABOUT ABOUT ABOUT
INCENTIVIZING OUR DAIRY FARMS TO
CAPTURE THAT METHANE. WE DON'T
WANT THAT METHANE TO JUST BE
RELEASED, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT
THAT METHANE IS, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF THE WORST GREENHOUSE GASES,
AND SO THIS PROPOSAL TO, TO, TO
ELIMINATE, THE, THE, AVOIDED
METHANE EMISSIONS FROM THE
CARBON INTENSITY CALCULATION. IT
WILL PLACE THE CARBON INTENSITY
OF THESE FUELS MORE IN LINE WITH
THE METHANE CAPTURED FROM
LANDFILLS. WHY SHOULD METHANE
FROM DAIRY DIGESTERS BE MORE
VALUABLE THAN THE METHANE
RELEASE FROM LANDFILLS? WE WANT
PARITY OR WE WANT SOMETHING THAT
THAT, THAT DOESN'T INCENTIVIZE
THE PRODUCTION OF THIS METHANE,
ESPECIALLY IN A WAY THAT
RECOGNIZES THAT IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT THE CARBON INTENSITY, BUT
IT'S ABOUT THE, THE SUFFERING
THAT'S THAT THAT'S BEING
SUFFERED BY PEOPLE LIVING IN
THESE FRONT LINE COMMUNITIES. I
WANT TO SEE IF, MISS SEATON, HAD
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT. I I'LL
JUST SAY BRIEFLY THAT I THINK
THERE'S A, A JUMP TO, KIND OF
WHAT WHAT WHAT THIS BILL DOES
THIS BILL, ALL THIS BILL DOES IS
RETURN US TO OUR KIND OF 2017
REALITY. BEFORE CARB CHANGED ITS
RULE ON THE LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARD, WHICH IS WHICH? WHICH
AT WHICH POINT KIND OF GAS FROM
LIVESTOCK MANURE WAS TREATED
SIMILARLY TO LANDFILL GAS. SO
ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THAT
THAT IS THE CREDITING SCHEME
THAT MAKES SENSE IN THIS CONTEXT
OF TRYING TO GET TO CLEANER
FUELS, ETC. IT DOES NOT PUSH THE
DAIRY INDUSTRY ANYWHERE, AND I
THINK THERE'S THIS IS I THINK WE
KIND OF ARE HOPING FOR A BROADER
DISCUSSION ON, ON HOW TO ADDRESS
THE DAIRY INDUSTRY MORE BROADLY.
THE LCFS IS NOT THAT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. WELL IF THESE, YOU KNOW,
IF WE GET RID OF THESE
INCENTIVES THOUGH, RIGHT. CARB
IS GOING TO HAVE TO FUND
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS. I PRESUME
TO MEET CONTINUE TO MEET OUR
TARGETS. THIS IS HELPING US MEET
OUR TARGETS NOW. I MEAN, THAT
COULD BE IN THE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN COSTS, IN A OBVIOUSLY
A VERY BAD BUDGET YEAR. SO WHAT?
YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT IS THE PLAN
FOR REPLACING, YOU KNOW, THESE,
THE GOALS TO MEET THESE TARGETS,
IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DAIRY
DIGESTERS. SO, SO AGAIN, JUST TO
CLARIFY WHAT MISS SEATON JUST
SAID. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT ELIMINATING ANY FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES FOR, THE CAPTURE OF
METHANE FROM THESE, DAIRY FARMS.
IF WE REMOVE THE ASSUMPTION FROM
CARB'S CALCULATIONS FOR THE
AVOIDED METHANE, THIS BILL WOULD
PLACE THE CARBON INTENSITY OF
THESE FUELS IN THE RANGE OF 35
TO 50, WHICH IS MORE IN LINE
WITH THE METHANE CAPTURED FROM
LANDFILL. SO SO THE BOTTOM LINE
IS, THERE WILL STILL BE
INCENTIVES, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
DAIRY FARMS TO CAPTURE METHANE.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE THIS
CASH COW THAT THAT CURRENTLY
EXISTS RIGHT NOW. I MEAN,
ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
BIOGAS IS CAPTURED AND DIGESTERS
, RECEIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
LCFS FUNDING, UNDER THE CURRENT
SCORING SYSTEM, SINCE THE
PROGRAM'S INCEPTION, FACTORY
FARM GAS HAS HAS PULLED IN MORE
THAN $1.26 BILLION FROM THE
LOCAL THE LCFS PROGRAM. WE NEED
TO TAKE AWAY THAT FINANCIAL
INCENTIVE. YOU KNOW, TO PRODUCE
METHANE, TO CONSOLIDATE THESE
BIGGER FARMS, TO ENGAGE IN
PRACTICES LIKE THESE WET MANURE
POOLS THAT'S PRODUCING MORE
RATHER THAN LESS METHANE. JUST
ONE MORE, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.
SURE. I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST
FOR THE OPPOSITION, I THINK,
WE'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE
TO THOSE COMMENTS, BUT ALSO, YOU
KNOW, HOW HOW DO YOU THINK WE'RE
GOING TO MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS
IN CALIFORNIA WITHOUT THIS,
TECHNOLOGY? I'M HAPPY TO TRY AND
ANSWER THAT. SO FIRST OF ALL,
LET'S LET'S MAKE A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT FOR THIS
COMMITTEE. DAIRY DIGESTERS ON
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES ARE NOT
PRODUCING METHANE. THEY'RE
CAPTURING IT. METHANE IS ALREADY
BEING PRODUCED ON DAIRIES
BECAUSE ALL DAIRIES IN
CALIFORNIA, IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME
LIQUID MANURE HANDLING CAPACITY.
DAIRIES IN CALIFORNIA, THE ONLY
ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE
COUNTRY THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
DISCHARGE WATER OFF OUR
PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO
HAVE CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS. EVEN
IN THE PASTURE BASED DAIRY
OPERATIONS AND MR. WOODS
DISTRICT, WHERE THEY ALSO HAVE
DIGESTERS ON SOME OF THESE
OPERATIONS, WE HAVE TO HAVE
THESE LIQUID HOLDING FACILITIES
SO WE CAN BEST UTILIZE OUR
NUTRIENTS AND TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S NO STORMWATER RUNOFF,
THEY PRODUCE METHANE. WE'RE NOW
COVERING THOSE AND CAPTURING
THAT METHANE AND PUTTING IT TO
PRODUCTIVE USE, WHICH CAN'T
HAPPEN AND WON'T HAPPEN UNLESS
THERE ARE MARKETS FOR THE
UTILIZATION OF THAT CAPTURED
METHANE. THE LCFS IS THAT MARKET
RIGHT NOW. AND IT IS PROVIDING
THE INCENTIVES TO THE INDUSTRY
TO BUILD THESE PROJECTS. IF IT
WERE TO CHANGE IN THE MANNER
PROPOSED BY THIS LEGISLATION,
THE INCENTIVES WOULD NOT COME
EVEN CLOSE TO PROVIDING THE
REVENUES NECESSARY TO PAY FOR
THE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS. THESE
ARE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ON EACH DAIRY, AND TENS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE
CLEANING AND CONDITIONING
CAPACITY, AND MILLIONS MORE FOR
THE INTERCONNECTIONS TO GET THE
GAS INTO A RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE. THE OTHER THING I
WOULD SAY, AS I SAID EARLIER,
DAIRY DIGESTERS DO NOT WORSEN
ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE IT.
THAT'S WELL DOCUMENTED.
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS IS MUCH
CLEANER THAN DIESEL AND A HEAVY
DUTY TRUCK. WE'RE NOT GOING TO
CONVERT ALL HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS TO
ELECTRICITY TOMORROW OR HYDROGEN
TOMORROW. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
FLEETS THAT ARE GOING TO NEED TO
RUN ON SOMETHING, RUNNING ON
SOMETHING OTHER THAN DIESELS, OR
DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN AIR
QUALITY, NOT JUST IN THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY, BUT IN THE SOUTH
COAST AIR BASIN. ALL THOSE
TRUCKS, MR. BAUER-KAHAN. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, SO ONE THING
THAT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT I THOUGHT WAS
REALLY STRIKING TO ME THAT I
DIDN'T KNOW WAS THAT 86% OF
THESE LCFS CREDITS ARE BEING
PURCHASED FROM OUT OF STATE. SO
I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'VE
SUPPORTED MANY, YOU KNOW, BILLS
TO HELP WITH THESE, DIGESTERS
BECAUSE I AGREE, THE METHANE IS
HERE. AND UNTIL WE ALL BECOME
LIKE MR. KALRA AND STOP, EATING
MEAT AND DAIRY, THEN IT'S NOT
GOING ANYWHERE. RIGHT. AND SO
THAT METHANE IS BEING PRODUCED
AND CAPTURING IT IS BENEFICIAL.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I
SEE THAT ACTUALLY WHAT IS BEING
CREDITED ISN'T HELPING THESE
COMMUNITIES, THE VAST MAJORITY
OF IT, 16. SO A VERY SMALL
MINORITY IS HELPING THESE
COMMUNITIES. AND THE VAST
MAJORITY OF IT IS NOT. THEN I
LOOK AT THAT AND I THINK
SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THE
SYSTEM. IN ADDITION TO WHAT OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM LOS ANGELES,
PROBABLY SOME MORE, MORE
SPECIFIC, BUT YOU'RE ALL FROM
LOS ANGELES, MANHATTAN BEACH,
SAID WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
GOT TO GET THESE INCENTIVES
RIGHT? RIGHT WE SHOULD HAVE
DIGESTERS, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S
SERIOUS INCENTIVES TO INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF METHANE YOU'RE
CAPTURING, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK
I'M HEARING. AND SO AS LONG AS
WE ARE, WE ARE GETTING THESE
INCENTIVES, RIGHT, SO WE ARE
INCENTIVIZING THE CAPTURE IN OUR
LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ENSURING
THAT WE'RE DRIVING DOWN THOSE
POLLUTANTS. ALTHOUGH METHANE IS
ONE OF OUR LARGEST GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS, AND IT HAS A MUCH
LARGER CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT
BEYOND CALIFORNIA. SO I SEE THE
BENEFIT OF INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT WE'RE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS, SO I'M
GOING TO FOCUS ON OUR OWN
COMMUNITIES. THE ONE SITTING
HERE TODAY, I THINK A LOT NEEDS
TO BE FIXED. DO I THINK THIS
BILL IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE BY
THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE
SESSION? NO. DO I THINK IT HAS A
LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE IT ENDS UP
ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK? YES. AND
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT HERE
TODAY. BUT I THINK THAT THERE
REALLY IS A WAY FOR US TO STRIKE
THAT BALANCE, TO INCENTIVIZE,
THE DAIRY FARMERS TO DO THE
RIGHT THING TO HELP OUR
COMMUNITY. RS. AND ALSO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE BRINGING MORE OF
THOSE DOLLARS HOME. I JUST THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL
SHARE A DESIRE TO DO. AND I HOPE
THE OPPOSITION SHARES THAT AS
WELL. YEAH. CAN I START WITH
JUST SAYING, THE IMPORT
PRODUCTION SHARE OF THE RNG IS
ACTUALLY SORT OF BETTER THAN
FOSSIL GAS. WE IMPORT OVER 90%
OF OUR FOSSIL GAS. AND THE
REASON THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
CREATE MORE IN-STATE PROJECTS
RECENTLY IS THIS AVOIDED METHANE
CREDITING ESSENTIALLY PRIOR TO
THE INSTITUTION OF THE AVOIDED
METHANE CREDITING AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE LEGISLATURE
UNDER SB 1383, THE OUT OF STATE
PRODUCTION SHERIFF RNG WAS EVEN
GREATER. SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
BUILD MORE IN-STATE PROJECTS
BECAUSE WE ARE THE LARGEST DAIRY
STATE IN THE COUNTRY, AND WE'VE
HAD A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO
CAPTURE THAT METHANE AND CREATE
RNG BECAUSE OF THIS TREATMENT.
IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THIS
TREATMENT, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO BUILD MORE PROJECTS AND THAT
PERCENTAGE WOULD ACTUALLY FALL
DOWN AGAIN. THANK YOU, MISS
FRIEDMAN, THANK YOU. SO, YOU
KNOW, IT'S IT IS A REALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR THE STORIES
OF THE COMMUNITY AND NOT BE VERY
MOVED BY THE IMPACT THAT THEY
ARE HAVING FROM THE DAIRY
INDUSTRY. I'VE BEEN TO THESE
AREAS. THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LARGE
OPERATION, WITH A LOT OF IMPACTS
ON THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND
THEM. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO
UNDENIABLE THAT HAVING THE
DIGESTERS AND THE METHANE
CAPTURE IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I
MEAN, IT'S PRIMARILY GOING INTO
VEHICLES THAT ARE VERY HARD TO
DECARBONIZE. IT'S BETTER TO
CAPTURE WHEN YOU HAVE AN IMPACT,
LIKE YOU HAVE MANURE FROM
EXISTING DAIRIES AND YOU HAVE
METHANE. YOU WANT TO CAPTURE
THAT, YOU WANT TO USE IT. SO
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE
DIGESTER ARE REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT IN THIS AREA AS WELL.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REALLY
THE ISSUE IS, IS THE INCENTIVE
CORRECT ENOUGH TO CREATE MORE
DIGESTERS TO CAPTURE MORE
METHANE, TO USE IT AS A FUEL,
NOT JUST TO SELL IT INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT BEING SO
HEAVILY LUCRATIVE THAT YOU'RE
CREATING MORE TOO MUCH
CONSOLIDATION WITHIN THE
INDUSTRY. HAVING DAIRIES BEING
CREATED BEYOND WHAT JUST SORT OF
THE MILK AND DAIRY MARKET WOULD,
WOULD BEAR. ARE YOU CREATING A
NEW INDUSTRY JUST TO CREATE
METHANE? AND I THINK THAT'S
WHERE THIS DISCONNECT IS AND
WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.
ACTUALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
THIS IS CARB WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE
STRUGGLE I'M HAVING BECAUSE
THERE'S A THERE'S A PROBLEM.
THERE'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.
MAYBE IT'S OUT OF WHACK. CARB IS
NOW STEPPED IN HAS BEEN THROUGH
GOING THROUGH THIS LONG PROCESS.
AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR RULES TO
MAYBE STRAIGHTEN OUT SOME OF
THIS SO THAT YOU DON'T CONTINUE
TO HAVE CONSOLIDATION. AND MAYBE
OVER PRODUCTION OF, YOU KNOW, IN
THE DAIRY INDUSTRY OR BRINGING
BRINGING THIS PROBLEM IN FROM
OUT OF STATE, EVEN BECAUSE
YOU'RE NOT JUST CREATING DAIRY
NOW, YOU'RE ALSO GETTING A
METHANE CREDIT THAT'S HIGHLY
LUCRATIVE. AND SO I WANTED TO
KNOW WHERE CARB IS ON THIS AND
WHY. WHY HAVE THEY NOT DEALT
WITH THIS, ARE THEY OPERATING
WITHIN THE A TIME FRAME THAT WAS
PUT ON THEM THROUGH THROUGH
LEGISLATION WHERE ARE THEY GOING
WITH THIS? YOU KNOW, THEY TEND
TO BE PRETTY GOOD AT AT
REGULATING STUFF, BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE THEY HAVEN'T HERE. SO I'M
CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, FROM YOU OR
FROM ANYBODY HERE. LIKE, WHY
LIKE WHY HAVE THEY NOT ACTED AND
, AND, AND ARE THEY ABOUT TO DO
SOMETHING AND IF SO, WHERE DOES
YOUR BILL FIT IN WITH THEIR OWN
RULEMAKING PROCESS? SURE. I
MEAN, I'M SURE THE OPPOSITION
WILL, AND I DON'T NEED I MEAN,
MAYBE I'LL, I DON'T NEED
EVERYONE TO ANSWER. MAYBE. BUT
I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR YOUR
THOUGHTS. YES. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M
HOLDING HERE A LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARD FAC, YOU KNOW, FROM THE
FROM CARB, YOU KNOW, AND THEY DO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF A AVOIDED
METHANE. I MEAN, LIKE THIS
DISCUSSION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY
IDENTIFYING THIS IS A BALANCING
ACT. YOU KNOW, IT'S A BALANCING
ACT BETWEEN HOW DO WE
INCENTIVIZE THEM TO CAPTURE THAT
METHANE BEING PRODUCED BY THE
COWS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME,
LIKE YOU JUST SAID, NOT MAKE IT
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS YOUR
WORDS OR MINE. A CASH COW, YOU
KNOW, TO, TO, YOU KNOW, OPERATE
THESE HAVE THESE OPERATIONS AS,
AS, AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT, THEY DO THEY THEY
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON
A PLAN TO, TO TRY TO ADDRESS AND
TO EVENTUALLY PHASE OUT THESE
DAIRY DIGESTERS. BUT I THINK THE
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH, WITH
CARB'S APPROACH TO THIS IS THAT
THEY'RE JUST FOCUSING ON THE
GREENHOUSE GAS. PART OF THIS
EQUATION OF THIS PICTURE AS THEY
ARE CHARGED TO DO. THEY ARE THE
LEAD AGENCY TO ADDRESS THE, THE,
THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
AND, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LOW
CARBON FUEL STANDARD PROGRAM
ORIGINATED OUT OF THE AB 32, IT
WAS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
FLAGSHIP PROGRAMS TO, TO, TO
ADDRESS, CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE FAILING TO
ADDRESS ARE THESE, ATTENDANT AIR
AND WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS ON
THESE FRONT LINE COMMUNITIES.
THAT'S WHERE CARB HAS BEEN
WOEFULLY, WOEFULLY, INADEQUATE
IN RECOGNIZING AND ADDRESSING,
YOU KNOW, THESE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE CONCERNS, BUT IF I MAY,
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE UNDERGOING
A PROCESS, A CORRECTIVE PROCESS.
NOW, THAT'S THAT'S THEIR GOING
THROUGH A PROCESS. SO I
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVEN'T
ACTED, BUT BUT WHY DO YOU FEEL
OR WHY DO YOUR SPONSORS FEEL
THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO INTERVENE
. YEAH. MAYBE I'LL TURN IT OVER
TO. YEAH I'LL START. ALTHOUGH
I'M GOING TO CRIB A LITTLE BIT
OF WHAT DAVID SHARED IS, SO CARB
HAS BEEN IN THE MIDST OF
RULEMAKING NOW, I MEAN,
OFFICIALLY SINCE THE BEGINNING
OF THIS YEAR, UNOFFICIALLY,
LONGER THAN THAT. THEY'VE HEARD
TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN
FROM RESIDENTS IN THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY AND BEYOND, FROM
THE STATE ABOUT THE PERVERSE
INCENTIVES, EMBEDDED INTO THIS
PROGRAM TO, TO PROMOTE THE
CREATION OF METHANE AND WET
MANURE, THERE WAS A CARB HEARING
, IN SEPTEMBER WHERE BOARD
MEMBERS KIND OF ECHOED AND
ELEVATED THOSE CONCERNS, SAYING
WE REALLY NEED TO SEE A CHANGE
IN THIS POLICY. I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE PERVERSE INCENTIVES IN
THIS PROGRAM, THE STAFF CAME
BACK WITH A PROPOSAL THAT
COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT
DIRECTION, COMPLETELY IGNORED
THE DIRECTION FROM ITS
CONSTITUENTS LIKE DAVID, AND
KIND OF PAPERED OVER ALL OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
AND ACTUALLY WENT IN DEEPER ON
AVOIDED METHANE, CREDITING IT.
IT CALLED FOR KIND OF ONGOING UP
TO 30 YEARS OF AVOIDED METHANE
CREDITING FOR ANY PROJECT THAT
BREAKS GROUND BETWEEN NOW AND
2030 AND KIND OF AN ONGOING
AVOIDED METHANE CREDITING FOR
PROJECTS THAT PRODUCE
ELECTRICITY, INCLUDING THROUGH
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES THAT
POLLUTE THROUGH THE BURNING OF
BIOGAS. AND SO, TO DATE, DESPITE
THE MANY, MANY YEARS AND HOURS
OF TRAVEL AND TESTIMONY FROM
PEOPLE IMPACTED SEVERELY,
SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THIS
PROGRAM, CARB STAFF TO DATE HAS
SHOWN NO CONCERN AND NO
CONSIDERATION. THÀNH AND NØ, NO
INTENTION OF CORRECTING THIS,
ACCOUNTING PROBLEM. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO MR.
WOOD, BUT ALSO WANTED TO JUST
PUT IT OUT THERE. WE DID INVITE
ARB TO JOIN US TODAY IN THIS
HEARING, AND THEY GRACIOUSLY
DECLINED, LET ME BEFORE YOU GO
THERE, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK
ANOTHER QUESTION. I'M JUST GOING
TO QUICKLY SAY, I MEAN, I, I
FEEL A LITTLE I THINK THIS IS
YOUR FIRST POLICY HEARING ON
THIS. CORRECT. OR HAVE YOU. THAT
IS CORRECT. SO I FEEL A LITTLE,
YOU KNOW, TORN BECAUSE CLEARLY
THERE'S A PROBLEM AND YOU HAVE A
REGULATOR WHO'S WORKING ON
RULEMAKING. AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE RESIDENTS DON'T FEEL
THEY'RE GOING WHERE THEY WANT TO
, THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES, IT'S A
LITTLE BIT HARD FOR ME WITHOUT
HEARING SORT OF ARB'S RATIONALE
AS TO WHAT THEY'RE BALANCING AND
WHY THEY CAME TO WHERE THEY DID,
AND I DON'T IT'S VERY IT'S HARD
FOR ME TO FEEL EQUIPPED TO
OVERRULE THEM, WHICH IS WHAT
YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO. AND THEY
HAVEN'T EVEN COME OUT WITH THEIR
REGS AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
THERE'S YOU KNOW, YOU'VE SEEN A
REPORT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE
REPORT. NOW LET'S INTRODUCE
LEGISLATION BEFORE THE RULES
HAVE BEEN MADE. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. BUT I REALLY
FEEL LIKE I WANT TO HEAR ARB'S
SIDE OF THIS BEFORE I, YOU KNOW,
COMMIT TO VOTING YES IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE OR ON THE FLOOR. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR.
WOOD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
THANK YOU, MR. MURATSUCHI, I'M
GOING TO PIGGYBACK ON THE
COMMENTS BY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN. I GUESS I'M TROUBLED
BY THE FACT THAT I DON'T ALWAYS
AGREE WITH CARB, I REALLY DON'T
SOMETIMES I THINK THEY, THEY,
THEY SOME OF THEIR POLICIES ARE
SO OVERARCHING AND SO, RIGID
THAT, SMALL COMMUNITIES AND
DISTRICTS WOULD THAT HAVE REALLY
GOOD AIR QUALITY, OFTEN SUFFER
FROM THAT, FROM MY, FROM THAT
LACK OF FLEXIBILITY? IN MY
OPINION. AND IT'S INTERESTING
THAT CARB IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A
RULEMAKING PROCESS. AND IT
SOUNDS LIKE THAT THE PROPONENTS
OF THE BILL DON'T LIKE THAT. AND
SO I FIND MYSELF IN AN AWKWARD
POSITION IN SUPPORT OF A
REGULATOR THAT I DON'T ALWAYS
SUPPORT, BUT I SUPPORT THEIR
MISSION. AND I THINK THAT'S
REALLY THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION HERE. THIS FEELS A
LITTLE LIKE, A SWEATER WITH A
STRING. AND THE MORE YOU PULL,
THE MORE YOU UNRAVEL THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS MORE
INDUSTRY WIDE. I THINK ARE
REALLY, REALLY SIGNIFICANT. I
NEVER THOUGHT I'D TALK ABOUT
CONSOLIDATION IN THIS, IN THIS
COMMITTEE. I USUALLY DO THAT
RELATED TO HEALTH CARE, BUT
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
CONSOLIDATION IN THE DAIRY
INDUSTRY BECAUSE SMALLER DAIRIES
HAVE STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE. WE
HAVE LOST HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS
OF DAIRIES IN CALIFORNIA AND,
AND, AND I FEAR MORE
CONSOLIDATION DOWN THE LINE,
WHICH DOESN'T HELP THE FOLKS IN
MY DISTRICT, UNLIKE THE
CONCLUSION THAT, MISS FRIEDMAN
HAS GONE TO, I CAN'T SUPPORT
THIS BILL TODAY, AND THERE'S
SOME THINGS THAT THAT THAT
TROUBLE ME. I DON'T I DIDN'T
HEAR ANYBODY DISPUTE THAT DAIRY
DIGESTERS REDUCE METHANE IN THIS
PART OF THIS IS AN AN. AND WHY
WHY WOULD WE WHY WOULD WE WANT
TO ELIMINATE INCENTIVES FOR
BUILDING THOSE DAIRY DIGESTERS
IF WE AGREE THAT THEY ACTUALLY
DO REDUCE METHANE, IT WAS
INTERESTING THAT ONE OF THE
OPPONENTS TO THE BILL IS
REPUBLIC SERVICES, AND THEY
OPERATE LANDFILLS. SO I'M
PUZZLED BY THAT. MAYBE I'LL ASK
THEM ABOUT THAT LATER. IF THIS
WERE TO PASS. AND THERE AND
KNOWING THAT THE DAIRIES ARE
USING SOME OF THIS MONEY TO HELP
BUILD DAIRY DIGESTERS AND THEY
DON'T HAVE THAT INCENTIVE TO DO
THAT ANY LONGER, WHAT DO YOU
PROPOSE AS A REPLACEMENT?
BECAUSE THE FEAR THAT I HAVE IS
THAT WE NOW HAVE THESE THESE
DAIRIES MOVING OUT OF STATE. SO
WE JUST PASS OUR PROBLEM ONTO
ANOTHER STATE AND WE DON'T
REALLY DO ANYTHING FOR THE
GREATER CLIMATE GOALS THAT WE
ALL WANT TO SUPPORT. SO WHAT DO
YOU PROPOSE AS A REPLACEMENT,
KNOWING KNOWING THAT THESE
ACTUALLY WORK. BUT WE DON'T WANT
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE OF THEM.
ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT I, WHAT IT
SOUNDS LIKE TO ME. YEAH. SO, I
WAS TRYING TO I THINK YOU'RE
RAISING A SIMILAR POINT TO WHAT
MR. HOOVER WAS RAISING, AND THE,
PERHAPS I NEED TO DO A BETTER
JOB OF EXPLAINING IT, BUT THE
PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF THE
AVOIDED METHANE EMISSIONS THAT
THIS BILL IS PROPOSING, IT WILL
NOT TAKE AWAY ALL INCENTIVES.
IT'S JUST TRYING TO REBALANCE
THE ECONOMICS OF THE LCFS,
CARBON INTENSITY SCORE HERE BY
REMOVING THE AVOIDED METHANE
EMISSIONS FROM CARB'S
CALCULATION. THIS BILL WILL
PLACE THE CARBON INTENSITY OF
THE DAIRY DIGESTER OPERATIONS IN
THE RANGE OF 35 TO 50, WHICH IS,
YOU KNOW, IT IS MORE THAN THE
ZERO FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR,
FUELED BY BY, YOU KNOW, CHARGED
BY SOLAR PANELS. BUT IT'S LESS
THAN WHAT CONVENTIONAL GAS GETS
IN A SCORE OF AROUND 100. SO
THERE IS STILL THE INCENTIVE,
YOU KNOW, TO CAPTURE THE METHANE
PRODUCED BY COWS. WE JUST DON'T
WANT IT TO BE SO LUCRATIVE THAT
IT MAY, YOU KNOW, THE EVIDENCE
IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IS UNCLEAR IN
TERMS OF TO WHAT EXTENT, THIS
CURRENT, TREATMENT OF AVOIDED
METHANE, WHETHER THAT MAY BE
CONTRIBUTING, REINFORCING THE
CONSOLIDATIONS OF THESE DAIRY
FARMS. I THINK THEY WOULD
DISAGREE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I'M
AS I'VE BEEN LEARNING AND DOING
A DEEP DIVE IN ALL THIS, THERE
APPEARS TO BE A UC DAVIS
PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, DOCTOR AARON SMITH,
THAT SEEMS TO, GET A LOT OF
RECOGNITION, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY
, IT ACCORDING TO, PROFESSOR
SMITH'S, CALCULATIONS, IT COSTS
A FARM ABOUT $294 TO RUN. AND
MAINTAIN A DIGESTER, WHEREAS THE
VALUE OF THE LCFS CREDITS
GENERATED BY THE DIGESTER IS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $1,935, MORE
THAN SIX TIMES THE COST OF
OPERATING THIS DIGESTER. AND
THIS IS CALCULATION FOR A 2000
CATTLE DAIRY FARM IN FEBRUARY OF
2021, WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE
MILK PRODUCED BY THE COW WOULD
BE $3,800. SO, I MEAN, THE POINT
OF THESE NUMBERS IS THAT THE
NUMBER ONE DRIVER OF THE
PROFITABILITY OF THESE DAIRY
FARMS IS THE VALUE OF THE MILK.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE HAVE THE
LCFS CREDITS BEING MORE THAN SIX
TIMES THE COST OF OPERATING
THESE DAIRY DIGESTERS? THAT'S
WHERE THAT REBALANCING NEEDS TO
BE TAKING PLACE. WE DON'T WANT
TO STOP THE DAIRY DIGESTERS FROM
OPERATING TO YOUR POINT, BECAUSE
WE DO WANT THEM TO CAPTURE THAT
THAT METHANE, WE DON'T WANT IT
TO JUST BE RELEASED AND
CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
BUT THERE THIS IS OUT OF WHACK
HERE. THIS IS SIX TIMES OUT OF
WHACK. AND I WOULD I GUESS I
THIS IS SUCH A LARGER ISSUE THAN
JUST THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I GO
BACK TO THE SWEATER ANALOGY,
BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE TO PRODUCE
MILK IN THIS STATE THAN ANYWHERE
ELSE IN THE COUNTRY. IT DOES.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. SO
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS WE'RE
IMPORTING MORE AND MORE MILK,
AND AS WE MAKE IT HARDER AND
HARDER FOR DAIRIES TO EXIST IN
CALIFORNIA, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE
MORE AND MORE DAIRIES, AND WE'RE
GOING TO IMPORT MORE MILK,
RELEASING MORE GREENHOUSE GASES
FOR TRANSPORTATION, WE'RE
SHIFTING, WE'RE SHIFTING, WE'RE
SHIFTING THE PROBLEM. AND FROM
MY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF, AND,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
PRESSURES ON WHY DAIRIES HAVE
CLOSED. WE HAD WE HAD A HUGE
PROBLEM WITH DROUGHT AND THE
ABILITY FOR DAIRIES TO BUY FOOD
FOR THEIR CATTLE. I EXPERIENCED
THAT IN MY DISTRICT. WE LOST
SEVERAL DAIRIES JUST FOR THAT,
AND WE LOST. WE HAD SOME THAT
WERE RIGHT ON THE VERY EDGE
BECAUSE OF THAT. I GUESS MY
POINT IS IT'S REALLY, REALLY
COMPLICATED AND, AND, I GO BACK
TO THIS AND WISH CARD WAS HERE
BECAUSE I WOULD ASK THIS IF WE
HAVE MORE AND MORE DAIRY
DIGESTERS OUT THERE AND THEY ARE
REDUCING METHANE, WHOSE ARE WE
MEASURING THIS? AND IS IT
POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE OTHER
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT ARE
HAVING, AN INFLUENCE ON THE
COMMUNITIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT? AND THAT IS NOT ALL JUST
DAIRIES. THERE ARE OTHER OTHER
FACTORS AS WELL. AND SO I'D LIKE
TO ASK THE I'D LIKE TO ASK THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THAT. WHO IS
ARE WE MEASURING THAT PIECE OF
THE PUZZLE, OF COURSE. AND THE
AIR RESOURCES BOARD AND THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT ARE REGULARLY
LOOKING AT ALL ISSUES THAT
AFFECT AIR QUALITY AND DAIRIES
ARE NOT THE LEADING CAUSE OF AIR
QUALITY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY. IT'S TRANSPORTATION. WE
KNOW THAT IT'S TRUCKS AND CARS
GOING UP HIGHWAY 99 AND I-5 THAT
ARE CAUSING POLLUTION THAT
IMPACTS THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY,
NOT DAIRIES. AND WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DIGESTERS, AND WE KNOW
THESE DIGESTERS IMPROVE THAT AIR
QUALITY FROM THOSE HEAVY DUTY
TRUCKS IN PARTICULAR. SO THERE'S
NO QUESTION THESE PROJECTS ARE
REDUCING AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IN
A NON-ATTAINMENT AREA. DAIRIES
IN CALIFORNIA ARE REGULATED FAR
MORE HEAVILY THAN ANYWHERE ELSE
IN THE COUNTRY, IN LARGE PART
BECAUSE THEY OPERATE IN A
NON-ATTAINMENT AREA. WATER
QUALITY CONCERNS ARE NOT THE
PURVIEW OF CARB, BUT THEY ARE
BEING APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED BY
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY
HAS BEEN PART OF THOSE
DISCUSSIONS, AND THERE WILL BE
NEW, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
EXTENSIVE WATER QUALITY
REGULATIONS FOR DAIRIES IN
CALIFORNIA IN THE NOT TOO
DISTANT FUTURE. IN THE NEXT FEW
MONTHS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
PROPOSED. SO THESE ISSUES ARE
REAL. THEY ARE BEING
APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED. BUT
THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE
BATHWATER. THE DIGESTERS THAT
ARE ACHIEVING THE SIGNIFICANT
METHANE REDUCTIONS GOES DIRECTLY
TO THE POINT THAT LED TO THE WAY
1383 WAS WRITTEN, WHICH IS THE
CONCERN VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERN
ABOUT LEAKAGE AND HAVING COWS
SIMPLY MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA.
AND THAT'S OCCURRING. WE'RE NOT
BUILDING NEW DAIRIES HERE. WE
HAVEN'T BUILT A NEW DAIRY HERE
IN TEN YEARS. CALIFORNIA DAIRY
FAMILIES ARE BUILDING NEW
DAIRIES. THEY'RE JUST NOT
BUILDING THEM HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. THEY'RE BUILDING
THEM IN KANSAS, TEXAS, SOUTH
DAKOTA AND IDAHO. AND AS THOSE
COWS LEAVE AND THOSE DAIRIES
OPERATE, WE LOSE CONTROL OF THE
EMISSIONS. AND IT'S NOT JUST
SHIFTING OUR BURDEN TO ANOTHER
STATE. GREENHOUSE GASES AND
METHANE ARE GLOBAL POLLUTANTS.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY WORSENING THE
SITUATION WHEN WE LOSE CONTROL
OF THE METHANE EMISSIONS BY
HAVING COWS MOVE OUT OF STATE
AND COWS MOVE VERY EASILY. AND
THIS IS ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES WHY THE DAIRY SECTOR
IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
LANDFILL SECTOR IS, YOU KNOW,
LANDFILLS DON'T MOVE OUT OF
STATE VERY WELL, AND WE
DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM SHIPPING
WASTE OUT OF STATE. THAT'S A BIG
PROBLEM ON THE EAST COAST. A
SMALLER PROBLEM HERE, IT'S STILL
A PROBLEM. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I
DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE OTHER
POINT IS THESE PROJECTS ARE NOT
DESIGNED TO INCREASE METHANE,
JUST THE OPPOSITE. THEY'RE
DESIGNED TO DECREASE IT. HERE IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF HOW WE
OPERATE, EVERY DIGESTER THAT
GOES IN IN CALIFORNIA IS A
SIMPLE COVERED LAGOON DIGESTER.
THEY'RE NOT BEING HEATED, WHICH
IS WHAT PRODUCES MORE METHANE.
THEY'RE AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURE,
WHICH MEANS THEY'RE PRODUCING
THE SAME. THEY'RE ACTUALLY
PRODUCING A LOT LESS BECAUSE WE
INSTALL A SOLID SEPARATOR ON THE
FRONT END. THAT PROBABLY REDUCES
THE METHANE BEING PRODUCED ON
THAT DAIRY BY 20. BEFORE WE
CAPTURE IT AND THEN TURN IT INTO
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS. SO JUST
THE OPPOSITE IS OCCURRING FROM
THESE PROJECTS. I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND JUST
TO AND I WILL NOT A QUESTION.
JUST A COUPLE BRIEF STATEMENTS.
SURE. IS THAT OKAY. THANK YOU.
I, I'M TRYING TO THINK I DON'T
KNOW WHO ELSE WAS MAYBE YOU, BUT
I KNOW I WAS HERE WHEN WE
NEGOTIATED WHEN NEGOTIATED 1383
WAS NEGOTIATED AND I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WERE OR NOT. WERE YOU
ALMOST THERE. ALMOST ALMOST
HERE. OKAY, THEN MAYBE I'M THE
ONLY ONE WHO WAS SITTING ON THIS
COMMITTEE DURING THAT, DURING
THAT PROCESS. AND IT WAS REALLY
CONTENTIOUS. AND THE WHOLE BIO,
THE DAIRY, THE DAIRY DIGESTER
WAS WAS A BIG PIECE OF THIS
CONVERSATION. AND CARB AND
ASKING CARB TO REGULATE THIS WAS
A BIG PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.
AND IT'S I FIND IT FRUSTRATING
THAT NOW WE'RE MOVING CARB IS
MOVING TOWARDS A REGULATORY
PROCESS. AND YET BEFORE IT'S
EVEN IN PLACE, WE WANT THIS BILL
WANTS TO MAKE THAT NULL AND VOID
. AND I AND I AND I, I JUST I
JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I
THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S
BEYOND THAT'S BEYOND FAIR AT
THIS POINT, CARB IS OUR AIR
QUALITY REGULATOR AND WE SHOULD
LET THEM DO WHAT THEY PLAN TO
DO. AND THEN SEE IF WE NEED TO
DO SOMETHING DOWN THE LINE AND I
KNOW ABOUT THE STUDY THAT MR.
BOCCADORO WAS TALKING ABOUT FROM
ANOTHER UC DAVIS PROFESSOR, MIT
LOMER YOU MIGHT READ IF I GOT
THAT NAME RIGHT, MIGHT READ THAT
BECAUSE AS TRANSPORTATION IS A
HUGE PORTION OF WHAT IS CAUSING
AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AS WELL. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WOOD. MISS
PELLERIN. WELL, THANKS TO THE
AUTHOR, I HAVE LEARNED MORE
ABOUT COW MANURE THAN I EVER
COULD HAVE EVER IMAGINED, AND I
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IN MY HEAD
THAT THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS
TO PUSH CARB TO REEVALUATE THE
CARBON INTENSITY SCORES OF DAIRY
DIGESTERS. AND IN NOT TO
ELIMINATE THE DAIRY DIGESTERS.
RIGHT NOT TO ELIMINATE
INCENTIVES TO CAPTURE, METHANE
EMISSIONS FROM COWS. OKAY.
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE CONTINUING TO ENCOURAGE
DAIRIES TO CAPTURE THAT METHANE,
BUT THE NEGATIVE CARBON
INTENSITY SCORE FOR DAIRY GAS
SEEMS REALLY INACCURATE TO ME,
SO CERTAINLY WE ALL WOULD HAVE
APPRECIATED CARB BEING HERE
TODAY TO EXPLAIN THAT NEGATIVE
CI SCORE. BUT, WORKING OFF THE
INFORMATION WE HAVE TODAY, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL, BUT
I ENCOURAGE CARB TO REEVALUATE
THAT VALUE OF THE LCFS CREDIT
BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM OUT OF
WHACK. SO THANK YOU, MR. CARRA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I KNOW IT'S TOUGH,
TO BRING THESE THIS KIND OF
LEGISLATION FORWARD, AS WAS ONE
OF THE OPPOSITION WITNESSES SAID
REDUCING METHANE IS ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN DO
TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE. AND I
COULDN'T AGREE MORE, AND I THINK
THAT RIGHT SIZING THIS SCORE, IF
WE DON'T DO IT, IT'S A SUBSIDY
THAT GIVES A MARKET ADVANTAGE TO
AN INDUSTRY THAT IS DRAMATICALLY
INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES IN
OUR ATMOSPHERE, FOR GENERATIONS,
WE'VE ACTUALLY GIVEN SUBSIDIES
TO THIS INDUSTRY AT OUR OWN
PERIL, AND IN FACT, THERE'S A
LOT OF REASONS WHY FARMS ARE
CLOSING. I HAD LEGISLATION TO
HELP INCENTIVIZE SMALL, FAMILY
OWNED DAIRY FARMS FROM
TRANSITIONING TO OTHER TYPES OF
FARMING THAT COULD BE MORE
POTENTIALLY LUCRATIVE, AND
COULDN'T EVEN GET A HEARING IN
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE FOR IT,
AND THE REALITY IS THAT OVER THE
LAST ABOUT 50 YEARS,
APPROXIMATELY 50 OF THE PER
CAPITA DEMAND FOR DAIRY HAS
DROPPED ABOUT 50. PEOPLE ARE
MAKING MARKET CHOICES AND
THEY'RE DECIDING TO MOVE AWAY
FROM DAIRY. AND THAT'S THAT'S
WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE SHOWING ON
A PER CAPITA BASIS. AND IT'S NOT
A SURPRISE WHEN YOU LOOK AT
ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE GLOBAL
POPULATION IS LACTOSE INTOLERANT
OR HAS SOME FORM OF LACTOSE
INTOLERANCE. I MENTION ALL THAT
BECAUSE THE MARKETS, THE MARKET,
AND WHEN WE DO THINGS THAT GIVE
ADVANTAGES, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY
REFLECTING THE MARKET. WE'RE
GIVING A SUBSIDY. AND WE'RE
MAKING A CHOICE THAT IN THIS
CASE, INCREASES, GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. AND SO I FULLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. I'D LIKE TO
BE ADDED ON AS A COAUTHOR. AND I
BELIEVE THAT, YES, IT IS UNDER
CARB'S JURISDICTION. WE DELVE
INTO THE JURISDICTION OF SO MANY
OF EITHER ADMINISTRATION OR
COMMISSIONS THAT ARE DOING WORK.
WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS ON
THE HEAT STANDARDS FOR WORKERS
FOR 4 OR 5 YEARS NOW, AND THE
REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE REAL
PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED
BY THIS. WE ALL COLLECTIVELY ARE
BEING IMPACTED BY THIS. AND I
THINK THAT WE SHOULD MOVE
TOWARDS SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE THE
BEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES
FOR REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, NOT PUTTING LIPSTICK
ON A COW OR PUTTING LIPSTICK ON
COW MANURE, AS IT WERE, BECAUSE
THE REALITY IS THAT WE KNOW THAT
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO
BE DOING THAT ARE FAR MORE
EFFECTIVE WITH OUR MONEY, RATHER
THAN SUBSIDIZING AN INDUSTRY IN
PARTICULAR, AS POINTED OUT WITH
MY COLLEAGUE, YOU KNOW, OUT OF
STATE INDUSTRY, IN A MANNER THAT
I BELIEVE IS NOT, ON BALANCE,
NOT BALANCED WITH OTHER METHODS
AND THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING
SCORED, THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.
AND YES, AS MY COLLEAGUE POINTED
OUT, YOU KNOW, TODAY IS EARTH
DAY, AND I'M VERY PROUD TO BE A
VEGAN BEING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
IS A BIG REASON FOR IT. BUT
THAT'S NOT THE REASON FOR MY
COAUTHORING OR SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. I THINK IT'S AN EQUITY
ISSUE IN TERMS OF HOW THE
PROGRAM IS BEING OPERATED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CARTER. MR.
FLORA, BRING US HOME. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, MR. MURATSUCHI, I'VE
ALWAYS HAD A LOT OF RESPECT FOR
YOU. WE'VE ALWAYS WORKED WELL.
AND, I DO HAVE MAJOR ISSUES WITH
THIS BILL. AND IT WAS LAST YEAR
YOU SAID ON THIS DAIS AND GOT
SUPER, FRUSTRATED WITH A FELLOW
COLLEAGUE BECAUSE THEY RAN A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
AFFECTED YOUR DISTRICT, BUT THEY
NEVER TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT.
RIGHT. AND SO HERE WE ARE,
GROUNDHOG'S DAY DOING EXACTLY
THAT. AND SO I WANT TO ASK YOU A
COUPLE QUESTIONS. AND SOME WOMAN
FRIEDMAN ASKED YOU ABOUT CARB
AND THEIR INPUT ON THIS. AND
THERE WAS A LETTER THAT, YOU,
SENATOR ALLEN, SENT TO THE
CHAIRWOMAN OF CARB. AND THEN SHE
RESPONDED BACK TO YOU. AND I
GUESS I WOULD JUST ASK YOU, DO
YOU DISAGREE WITH HER CONCLUSION
? THÀNH THAT ELIMINATING DAIRY
BIOMETHANE FROM LCFS WOULD
JEOPARDIZE THE STATE'S CLIMATE
GOALS? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT
? I, DISAGREE THAT THAT SHOULD
BE THE SOLE CONSIDERATION.
THÀNH. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO
STRIKE A BETTER BALANCE. SO YOU
DISAGREE WITH CARB ON THAT? I, I
DISAGREE THAT THE CARB DOESN'T
HAVE THE FULL PICTURE IN MIND.
OKAY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, HOW
MANY DAIRIES ARE IN YOUR
DISTRICT? ZERO. OKAY. TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, LET'S TALK ABOUT FULL
PICTURE. OKAY? BECAUSE I GREW UP
WITH DAIRIES ALL AROUND ME.
OKAY. I USED TO PLAY IN THE FEED
STALLS ON THEIR SILAGE MOUNDS.
AND HOW THOSE LOOK NOW, SILAGE
IS FEED, NOT MANURE. OKAY. THANK
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. SO JUST I'LL
EDUCATE YOU MORE ON DAIRY WHEN
YOU. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT
TOO. OKAY BUT MY POINT IS LIKE
THESE ARE THIS IS MY HOMETOWN.
THIS IS US, RIGHT? AND SO OUT OF
ALL OF US ELECTEDS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, DID YOU REACH
OUT TO ANY OF US BEFORE THIS
BILL WAS PUT FORWARD? I DID
REACH OUT TO THE CHAIR OF THE AG
COMMITTEE A FEW DAYS AGO. YEAH,
AND WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE? I
THINK I PROBABLY KNOW WE'LL HEAR
A FULL HEARING IF THIS BILL GETS
OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND HER
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE. OKAY.
YEAH. IT'S BEEN SAID A FEW
DIFFERENT TIMES AS WELL THAT IF
WE REDUCE THIS OR TAKE THIS SIN
OF AWAY, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS
THE INCENTIVE THAT NUMBER A
LITTLE BIT AS WELL. BUT IN 13
MAKE SURE I GET THAT RIGHT. AND
SENATOR LARA 1383 THAT SOME
MEMBER WOULD BROUGHT UP THERE
WAS A MANDATED 40% REDUCTION IN
THAT. DO YOU KNOW THE PERCENTAGE
OF GRF FUNDS THAT GO TO THAT
THAT HAVE CREATED A 20%
REDUCTION? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT
PERCENTAGE OF GRF FUNDS THAT
WE'VE USED TO GET TO? 20. IT'S
2% OF TOTAL GRF FUNDS TO GET TO
50% OF A MANDATED REDUCTION THAT
WE DID IN 2016. OKAY. SO WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT JUST RISK VERSUS
REWARD, LIKE THIS IS A PRETTY
GOOD RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT,
MAJORLY, RETURN ON OUR
INVESTMENT. AND I THINK ONE OF
THE FRUSTRATIONS THAT SO MANY OF
US HAVE IS WE CONTINUE TO SET
POLICY CLIMATE GOALS THAT WE'RE
NOT EVEN ARGUING THE GOALS OF
THE CLIMATE, THE GOALS. BUT IF
WE CONTINUE TO TAKE AWAY EVERY
ABILITY FOR INDUSTRY TO MEET
THOSE GOALS, JUST BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T FIT A POLITICAL
NARRATIVE, WE'RE NOT EVER GOING
TO MEET THOSE GOALS. AND THE
CHAIR OF CARB SAID THAT IN HER
RESPONSE BACK TO YOU THAT IF WE
TAKE THAT AWAY, IT PUTS IN
JEOPARDY OUR CLIMATE GOALS. SO I
REALLY, REALLY AM CONCERNED THAT
AS WE CONTINUE THIS PROCESS AND
WE MOVE THIS THING FORWARD, THAT
IF WE'RE NOT OPEN AND HONEST
ABOUT THIS, RIGHT, AND THERE IS
A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE DAIRY
INDUSTRY HAS DONE IN THE LAST 20
YEARS, I MEAN, EVEN TO THE POINT
OF FIGURING OUT HOW WE FEED COWS
DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THERE'S
METHANE ON BOTH ENDS OF THAT
COW. RIGHT? AND SO IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO
DISCUSS. AND, AND I WOULD JUST
IMPLORE YOU AND I HAVE A COUPLE
QUESTIONS FOR THE OPPOSITION AS
WELL. BUT LET'S DON'T JUST LET A
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY BE THE ENEMY
OF GOOD. BE THE ENEMY OF
PERFECT. AND I WILL END ON THIS
BEFORE I GET TO MY QUESTIONS
THAT THERE ARE EIGHT COUNTIES IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY. ALL OF THEM,
ALL OF THEM. WAS IT SOMETHING I
SAID? THAT'S ENOUGH. I WAS ON A
GOOD ONE. THERE HE'S SO POLITE.
WHEN HE CUT YOU OFF OUT OF THE
EIGHT COUNTIES IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY THAT ARE ALL ON RECORD
SUPPORTING THE CLIMATE, SMART
AGRICULTURAL PROCESSES, OKAY,
INCLUDING DAIRY DIGESTERS. WHEN
THE LOCAL ELECTEDS ARE ON RECORD
SUPPORTING THIS. WHAT MAKES US
SMARTER THAN THEM? WHAT GIVES US
THE ABILITY FROM FROM AREAS THAT
ARE NOT THAT DON'T HAVE DAIRIES?
YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE THE
AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT? YOU
SURE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH
YOU'RE A DULY ELECTED LOCAL
PERSON? I'M THE AUTHORITY. SO I
REALLY DO WISH THAT SOME OF OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDS, WHICH
THERE ARE A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS
LEGISLATION AS WELL, THAT WE
WOULD HAVE AN HONEST
CONVERSATION. AND SO IT'S MORE
OF A STATEMENT. AND IF YOU CAN
RESPOND TO THAT IN YOUR CLOTHES,
THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. I LIED
BECAUSE I DID WANT TO ADDRESS
THE INCENTIVE PART. WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT RECALIBRATING THAT
INCENTIVE RIGHT THROUGH THE
CHAIR. I'M SORRY, SIR, I'M JUST
LOSING IT. I'LL CUT YOU OFF ONCE
ALREADY. IF WE REDUCE THAT
INCENTIVE OR REEVALUATE IT. AND
THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS LESS THAN
WHAT'S NEEDED TO ACTUALLY BUILD
THESE PROJECTS TO MAKE IT VIABLE
FOR THEM TO INVEST IN THE STATE.
WE'VE EFFECTIVELY KILLED THE
PROJECTS. IT'S JUST REALLY THAT
SIMPLE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE, IS REDUCING
THAT. WE CAN SAY WE'RE NOT
WANTING TO KILL DAIRY DIGESTERS,
BUT IF WE REDUCE IT TO A VALUE
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT WORTH THEIR
TIME, THEN THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN, TO THE
OPPOSITION. THÀNH I WOULD JUST
LOVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON IN WHAT
WORLD IF WE GET RID OF DIGESTERS
, CAN WE MEET THESE CLIMATE
GOALS? NO. YEAH, YEAH. I'LL SAY
FIRST AND FOREMOST, WITH RESPECT
TO THE TOTAL INCENTIVE, THE LCFS
DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED HAS FALLEN FROM THE
HIGH TWO HUNDREDS TO IN THE 50S
TODAY. SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN CUT
DOWN, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, BY
75. SO THE PROJECTS ARE ALREADY
HURTING. AND IF THEY WERE TO
ALSO LOSE THEIR AVOIDED METHANE
CREDITING, THEY WOULD ABSOLUTELY
NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD. WE WOULD GET NO NEW
ONES. WE WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE
EXISTING ONES GO INTO
BANKRUPTCY. THANK YOU. THEN ONE
FINAL QUESTION, MR. CHAIR, IF I
MAY. I'M SORRY. AND THEN JUST,
DOCTOR WOOD BROUGHT IT UP ABOUT
THE CONSOLIDATION OF DAIRY
INDUSTRY, WHAT'S CAUSING THAT?
AND I'LL TAKE THAT ONE.
CONSOLIDATION HAS BEEN OCCURRING
EVERY YEAR FOR 70 YEARS IN THE
CALIFORNIA DAIRY SECTOR. WE'VE
GONE FROM, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO
20,000 DAIRIES IN 1950 TO JUST
OVER 100 DAIRIES AND 20, 23,
IT'S A COMBINATION OF HEAVY
REGULATION, HIGH LABOR COSTS,
HIGH ENERGY COSTS ARE ADDING TO
THIS PROBLEM. BUT WATER SUPPLY
RELIABILITY AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SIGMA IS GOING
TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT. SO WE'RE
NOT ONLY CONSOLIDATING, WE'RE
LOSING TOTAL NUMBER OF COWS IN
THE STATE. WE'VE LOST 200,000
COWS SINCE 2008, THROUGH 2022.
AND WE KNOW THAT TREND IS GOING
TO CONTINUE. AND THAT'S WHEN THE
LEAKAGE CONCERNS REALLY COME TO
ROOST. WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO
HAVING LEAKAGE. WE'VE BEEN ABLE
TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION BECAUSE
OF EFFICIENCY. BUT AS WE START
TO SEE COW NUMBERS OR ATTRITION
CONTINUE TO INCREASE, LEAKAGE
WILL START OCCURRING AND THOSE
EMISSIONS WILL SIMPLY BE
PRODUCED ELSEWHERE AND LIKELY
MORE SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS. BUT
DIGESTERS AREN'T CAUSING
CONSOLIDATION. THESE NUMBERS
THAT GET THROWN AROUND THE
FARMER SEES ABOUT $65 PER COW
PER YEAR FOR HAVING A DIGESTER
ON HIS PROPERTY, NOT SEVERAL
THOUSAND DOLLARS OF INCOME.
GETTING RID OF THE LCFS AVOIDED
METHANE CREDITING WILL ELIMINATE
THESE PROJECTS, PERIOD. MR.
MURATSUCHI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU. I, I JUST WANT
TO BRIEFLY, TRY TO WRAP UP.
FIRST OF ALL, TRY TO ADDRESS,
MISS FRIEDMAN AS WELL AS, DOCTOR
WOODS, CONCERNS, OF GETTING
AHEAD OF CARB, I MEAN, I THINK
WE, WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THAT,
THAT THAT WHILE WE WANT WANT TO
LOOK TO CARB FOR LEADERSHIP IN
THIS SPACE ARE OKAY. WE WANT TO
SEND A SIGNAL TO CARB,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE.
YEAH. THANK YOU, I JUST WANT TO
THANK VICE CHAIR OF LARA FOR
YOUR PASSIONATE, REMARKS. AND I
WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE PEOPLE
FROM IMPACTED COMMUNITIES WHO
CAME UP HERE TODAY, TO TESTIFY.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO
IS INCREDIBLY RIGHTEOUS, MR.
MURATSUCHI, I WOULD HOPE THAT
ARB CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THIS IN
THEIR RULEMAKING PROCESS. THE
IDEA THAT WE WOULD NEED A POLICY
FRAMEWORK TO HELP GUIDE THEM. I
DON'T THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY
UNFOUNDED. AT THE SAME TIME, I
THINK IT'S NOT COMPLETELY FAIR
TO BUSINESS WHO'S MADE AN
INCREDIBLE INVESTMENT TO HAVE
SUCH AN ABRUPT STOP, BUT I DON'T
THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS
LEGISLATION HAVE THAT ABRUPT
STOP HERE TODAY. SO THIS BILL
HAS A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? AND WE HAVE
A SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY, CALL
THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE.
BRIAN. HI, BRIAN. AYE, FLORA.
FLORA NÓ BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN
I FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOOVER.
NO. HOOVER NO. CHOLERA. CHOLERA.
I MURATSUCHI I MURATSUCHI I
PATTERSON. PELLERIN PELLERIN I.
WICKS. WOOD WOULD NOT VOTING.
YES. THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT
. THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW GOING TO
GO BACK TO SIGN IN ORDER. MISS
DON ADDIS.
DO YOU HAVE A CHANCE? SO WE ARE
ANYWAY. SO. 25. 37. YOU CAN
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY. YEAH
WELL. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
STAFF. AND THANK YOU TO THE
ADVOCATES THAT ARE HERE TODAY.
I'M PRESENTING, TODAY, I'M HERE
TO PRESENT AB 2537, THE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN OFFSHORE
WIND ENERGY ACT. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS BILL
FOR MONTHS. I WOULD SAY IN ORDER
TO GET THIS RIGHT, AS YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA HAS ESTABLISHED
CRITICAL, CLEAN ENERGY GOALS.
OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS THESE GOALS
BENEFITS NOT ONLY HUMAN
COMMUNITIES, BUT FRAGILE
ECOSYSTEMS AND VITAL
BIODIVERSITY ON LAND, IN THE AIR
AND IN THE OCEAN. AMONG THESE
GOALS IS THE REQUIREMENT TO
TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE AND
ZERO CARBON ENERGY RESOURCES BY
2045, WITH 25GW OR ENOUGH POWER
FOR ABOUT 25 MILLION HOMES
COMING FROM OFFSHORE WIND.
ENERGY PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE
WIND ENERGY IS WELL UNDERWAY IN
CALIFORNIA, STARTING AS FAR BACK
AS 2016. IN 2022, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AWARDED FIVE LEASES
IN FEDERAL WATERS OFF THE COAST
OF OUR STATE TWO ALONG THE NORTH
COAST AND THREE ALONG THE
CENTRAL COAST. IN JUNE 23RD, THE
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY LEASES WERE
EXECUTED, AND IN JANUARY 24TH,
THE CEC RELEASED CALIFORNIA'S
OFFSHORE WIND STRATEGIC PLAN.
LEASEHOLDERS NOW ARE MOVING INTO
THE SURVEYING, PLANNING AND
PERMITTING STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
AND AS OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
MOVES FORWARD IN WATERS ALONG
THE NORTH AND CENTRAL COAST,
PARTICULARLY ALONG THE COAST OF
MY DISTRICT, EXTENSIVE INPUT AND
INTERACTION FROM LOCAL TRIBES
AND COMMUNITIES IS NEEDED. I
WOULD SAY THAT HISTORICALLY, WE
ALL KNOW COMMUNITIES THAT HOSTED
LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
HAVE BEEN BURDENED WITH HARMFUL
IMPACTS, AND TODAY WE DEFINITELY
LOOK TO DO BETTER FOR OFFSHORE
WIND ENERGY PROJECTS PLACED
ALONG CALIFORNIA'S PRISTINE AND
FRAGILE COASTLINE. WE ALL AGREE
THAT UPLIFTING TRIBAL AND
COMMUNITY VOICES IS CRITICAL,
BOTH DURING THE PLANNING AND THE
COMMUNITY BENEFITS, AGREEMENTS,
PROCESSES. BUT THERE'S ONE KIND
OF PROBLEM, AND THAT'S THAT I'VE
HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM LOCAL
COMMUNITIES SUCH AS SMALL TRIBES
AND CITIES, THAT THERE'S A GAP
IN RESOURCE REYES THAT PREVENTS
THEM FROM ADEQUATELY
PARTICIPATING IN OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
BENEFITS. CONVERSATIONS AS WE
EACH KNOW, TRUE ENGAGEMENT OFTEN
NECESSITATES POSSESSING IN-DEPTH
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND IT'S
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT WHEN THE
PROJECTS THEMSELVES ARE NEW AND
COMPLEX, SUCH AS IN THE CASE OF
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
. SO AB 2537, THE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT IN OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY ACT CREATES A SOLUTION BY
ESTABLISHING AN OFFSHORE WIND
ENERGY COMMUNITY CAPACITY
BUILDING FUND THAT WILL PROVIDE
GRANTS TO LOCAL TRIBES AND
COMMUNITIES. THESE GRANTS WILL
ENHANCE THE ABILITY TO ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY BENEFITS, PROCESSES,
SO THAT LOCAL TRIBES AND
COMMUNITIES ARE MORE SECURE IN
THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR
VOICES HEARD AND COME TO FAIR
AGREEMENTS. I SHOULD ALSO ADD
THAT WE WILL BE AMENDING THIS
BILL IN THE UTILITIES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE TO BETTER ALIGN WITH
PROVISIONS OF AB 209, WHICH WILL
THEN REMOVE SECTION TWO OF THIS
BILL AND BOTH, I WOULD SAY ALL
PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO THESE
COMING AMENDMENTS. SO I WANT TO
THANK OUR SPONSORS, THIS
COMMITTEE AND OUR STAKEHOLDER
PARTNERS FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT
WITH ME AS WITNESSES. OUR PETER
TAN FROM BRIGHT LIGHT DEFENSE
PROJECT AND ANDRES RAMIREZ FROM
THE CITY OF MORRO BAY. AND I
MIXED, I MIXED UP MY ARROWS, BUT
THEY'RE BOTH HERE, SO, PETER, IF
YOU WANT TO GO FIRST, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
PETER TAN. I REPRESENT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NONPROFIT
AT BRIGHTLINE DEFENSE. THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, I THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
TODAY. THIS BILL IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD. ITS SINGULAR
PURPOSE IS TO CREATE IMPORTANT
FUNDING FOR IMPACTED
COMMUNITIES, TO PREPARE FOR
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT, IT
WOULD DO SO BY CREATING A
COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION. DISADVANTAGED
OR RURAL COMMUNITIES, TRIBES,
AND QUALIFYING NONPROFITS CAN
APPLY FOR THE GRANTS FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ACCESS
EXISTING COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE, TO
GROW ITS OWN LEADERSHIP, OR
OTHERWISE REMOVE BARRIERS FOR
MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN THE
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS. NOW, CAPACITY BUILDING
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN
BRIGHTLINE'S WORK ON THE GROUND.
IT'S BEEN ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT
COMMUNITIES ARE ACTUALLY CURIOUS
AND EXCITED AND WANT TO ENGAGE
IN OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT
PROCESSES. HOWEVER, WE'VE ALSO
BEEN HEARING THAT THE BIGGEST
BARRIER HANDS DOWN IS THE LACK
OF RESOURCES, AND THIS IS THE
THIS PREVENTS MEANINGFUL
ENGAGEMENT. THIS BILL ADDRESSES
THIS GAP BY CREATING AN
EQUITABLE, TRANSPARENT FUND THAT
COMMUNITIES CAN ACCESS TO
ACTUALIZE THEIR OWN VISION OF
WHAT ENGAGEMENT IS. THE BILL
ALSO ALIGNS WITH STATE POLICIES
SUCH AS THE CÁC AB 25 OFFSHORE
WIND STRATEGIC PLAN, WHICH
SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE
STATE PRIORITIZE THESE COMMUNITY
CAPACITY BUILDING. MANY LAWS AND
REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ENACTED TO
SPEED UP THE DEVELOPMENT OF
OFFSHORE WIND, CEQA EXEMPTIONS
PERMIT STREAMLINING. THOSE ARE
PRIME EXAMPLES, BUT THERE HASN'T
BEEN AN EQUIVALENT INVESTMENT IN
COMMUNITIES TO REPLACE
POTENTIALLY LOST PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS. THIS BILL HELPS
CLOSE THE GAP TO ASSURE THAT
COMMUNITIES CAN KEEP PACE AND
NOT BE LEFT BEHIND. AS A STATE
URGENTLY REACHES ITS CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
YOU'RE AT TWO MINUTES. I THINK
YOU THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR THIS
TIME AND FOR THAT PROMPT, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
WITNESS TWO MINUTES, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, ANDRES RAMIREZ HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MORRO
BAY, ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES ON
THE FRONT LINE OF DEALING WITH
THE FUTURE IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE
WIND DEVELOPMENT. MORRO BAY,
FIRST OF ALL, IS VERY STRONGLY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE STATE'S
CLIMATE GOALS AND IS
ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE
MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO
ACHIEVING SUCH GOALS. I'D LIKE
TO REFERENCE THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, WHICH INDICATES
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT CAN
PROVIDE A VARIETY OF BENEFITS TO
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING TAX
REVENUES, SUPPLY SUPPLY CHAIN,
MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND JOB
CREATION. THESE ARE ALL THINGS
THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK
FORWARD TO, BUT IT ALSO
INDICATES THAT IT CAN LEAD TO
CONCERNING IMPACTS SUCH AS
CHANGES IN THE LOCAL WORKFORCE,
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
AND CHANGES. THE ENVIRONMENT. SO
ESTABLISHING A STANDARDIZED
PROCESS WITH FUNDING TO BUILD
CAPACITY AT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
COULD COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING
EFFORTS. WE COULDN'T AGREE MORE
WITH THAT LAST POINT. A
STANDARDIZED PROCESS WITH
FUNDING TO HELP LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL IF WE WANT TO GET THIS
RIGHT. MORRO BAY HAS ALREADY
COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE MORRO BAY
HARBOR IS NOT PROPERLY EQUIPPED
TO ACCOMMODATE THE HEAVY USAGE
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND
CONSTANT MAINTENANCE OF OFFSHORE
WIND INFRASTRUCTURE.
ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE NOT STILL
FULLY AWARE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OR COMMUNITY IMPACTS.
THESE ARE CRITICAL FACTORS THAT
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BE ABLE TO
EDUCATE THE CONSTITUENCY ON AND
ADDRESS HEAD ON. SO ULTIMATELY,
WHAT THE CITY NEEDS AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES NEED ARE FUNDING TO
BRING ON BOARD THE SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTS AND ENGAGE IN THE
PROCESS. AS NOTED, TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL, LEGAL, COMMUNICATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTISE.
THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE JUST
THAT. SO SUPPORTING THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTING OUR CLIMATE, BUT ALSO
SUPPORTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES
RESPECTFULLY URGE I VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2537? NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. WE'LL TURN
THE MIC ON. THERE YOU GO.
MICHELLE KANELLIS ON BEHALF OF
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU. HI.
CHRISTINA MOHABEER WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. EDUARDO
MARTINEZ I WAS ASKED TO CONVEY
THE SUPPORT OF THE MONTEREY BAY
AQUARIUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OF CHRIS
ROSE ON BEHALF OF NRDC ACTION
FUND IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2537? YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES
PER WITNESS. PLEASE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. VICE CHAIR AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
MOLLY KROLL. I'M WITH THE
AMERICAN CLEAN POWER
ASSOCIATION. WE VERY MUCH AGREE
WITH THE AUTHOR AND SUPPORT THE
CAPACITY BUILDING AS A GOAL.
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT
TRIBES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT THEY
NEED FOR THE SUCCESS OF OFFSHORE
WIND. IN THIS IN THE STATE, WE
DID HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE BILL
LANGUAGE IN PRINT AND ESPECIALLY
THE TIE BETWEEN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAPACITY BUILDING AND THE
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT OF AB 1373
ELIGIBLE RESOURCES, INCLUDING
OFFSHORE WIND. HOWEVER, VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATION WITH THE AUTHOR
RECENTLY AND LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING THE AMENDMENTS IN PRINT.
AND WITH THOSE WE ARE NOW
NEUTRAL ON THE BILL AND LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING LANGUAGE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2537? SEEING NONE BRING BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE DOCTOR WOULD MOVE
THE BILL. OH, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. SHE AND I
SHARE COMMUNITIES THAT THAT ARE
LOOKING AT OFFSHORE WIND
DEVELOPMENT, AND AGREE WITH WITH
HER CONCERNS. I THINK IN
CERTAINLY IN SMALL COMMUNITIES,
SMALL RURAL COMMUNITIES, WE LACK
THE EXPERTISE TO, AND A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS THAT
THAT DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE,
EXPERTISE, TECH AND NEED SOME
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. SO THIS IS
A THIS IS A THIS IS A GOOD BILL
AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO
CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AS TIME GOES
THROUGH. BUT I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH MISS PELLERIN. I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
GREAT BILL AND I'D LIKE TO BE
ADDED AS A COAUTHOR IF YOU GOT
SOME ROOM. THANKS THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE SEEING NONE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? SURE. I'LL JUST
SAY THAT, AB 2537 RECOGNIZES
THAT CALIFORNIA IS ON A PATH
TOWARDS CLEAN ENERGY GOALS THAT
BENEFIT HUMAN COMMUNITIES.
FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS, AND VITAL
BIODIVERSITY ON LAND, IN THE AIR
AND IN THE OCEAN. AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA'S
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
IS A PART OF THAT. AND THIS BILL
ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT ALONG THIS
PATH, WE NEED TO UPLIFT THE
VOICES OF LOCAL TRIBES AND
COMMUNITIES AND TO ENSURE THAT
THEY'RE NOT JUST PROVIDING
INPUT, BUT THAT THEY CAN TAKE AN
ACTIVE ROLE IN WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION
IS DO PASS TO UTILITIES AND
ENERGY COMMITTEE. BRIAN BRIAN.
AYE. FLORA. FLORA. AYE
BAUER-KAHAN. FRIEDMAN HOOVER.
HOOVER. I CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I
MURATSUCHI. PATTERSON. PELLERIN.
PELLERIN I WICKS. WOOD. WOOD I
THANK YOU THAT BILL IS OUT, BUT
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JASMEET BAINS,
COME ON DOWN WITH 3019. WHAT UP,
WHAT UP? RUNNING BETWEEN ALL
THESE MEETINGS, GETTING LEARNING
HOW THIS WORLD WORKS. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE. RESIDENCY ALL
OVER AGAIN. I FEEL LIKE I'M
GOING TO GET A TRAUMA CALL ANY
SECOND. HAVE TO RUN TO THE OR.
YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN READY. THANK
YOU. SO MUCH. HAPPY BIRTHDAY,
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN. SAY EARTH
DAY OR BIRTHDAY? BIRTHDAY. IT'S.
IT'S JUST EARTH DAY. IT'S JUST
EARTH DAY. THEY SAID BIRTHDAY. I
WISH IF I WAS BORN ON EARTH DAY,
THIS WOULD BE SO APPROPRIATE.
I'M LIKE, DID I MISS SOMETHING?
HAPPY EARTH DAY? THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS, LET ME FIRST START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL AND CONFIRM
THAT I WILL ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AS
PROPOSED IN THE ANALYSIS, AB
3019 WILL EMPOWER COUNTIES TO
PLUG ORPHAN OIL WELLS WHEN THEY
CAN DO THE WORK MORE QUICKLY
THAN WAITING FOR THE STATE AND
CAL GEM TO DO IT FOR THEM. OIL
AND GAS OPERATORS ACTUALLY PAY
ANNUAL IDLE WELL FEES INTO THE
HAZARDOUS AND IDLE DESERTED WELL
ABATEMENT FUND, WHICH IS
MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION, TO PLUG AND
ABANDON ORPHANED WELLS THAT HAVE
NO IDENTIFIED RESPONSIBLE
OPERATOR OR THAT HAVE BEEN
DESERTED BY INSOLVENT OPERATORS.
CAL GEM HAS IDENTIFIED MORE THAN
5300 ORPHANED OR POTENTIALLY
ORPHAN WELLS THAT ARE PRIMARILY
LOCATED IN THE COUNTIES OF KERN,
VENTURA, LOS ANGELES, FRESNO AND
SANTA BARBARA. IN 2022 AND AGAIN
IN 2023, CAL GEM CONDUCTED
INSPECTIONS THAT REVEALED DOZENS
OF LEAKING OIL WELLS NEAR HOMES,
SCHOOLS AND PARKS IN THE KERN
COUNTY COMMUNITIES. ARVIN AND
LAMONT RESIDENTS LIVING NEAR
THESE LEAKS REPORTED HEADACHES,
NAUSEA AND OTHER SYMPTOMS OF
EXPOSURE TO METHANE. WHILE MANY
OF THE IDENTIFIED WELLS HAD A
RESPONSIBLE OPERATOR THAT FIXED
THE LEAKS, OTHER WELLS WERE
FOUND TO BE ORPHANED AND FELL
UPON CAL GEM TO FIX EVERY DAY
THAT GOES BY. ONCE A LEAK HAS
BEEN FOUND IS ANOTHER DAY LOCAL
FAMILIES HAVE TO LIVE, WORRIED
ABOUT A LEAK. THEY HAVE NO POWER
TO SEAL THEMSELVES, PROVIDING AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR CAL GEM TO
PARTNER WITH LOCAL COUNTIES THAT
CAN PLUG AND SEAL LEAKS AND HELP
DECOMMISSION THE THOUSANDS OF
ORPHAN WELLS IN CALIFORNIA IN A
MORE RAPID MANNER THAN BELGIUM
CAN DO ON ITS OWN, IS A WIN WIN.
I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS
NOT WORK THAT COUNTIES HAVE
TRADITIONALLY ENGAGED IN, AND
THERE MAY BE CHALLENGES IN
CREATING LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS.
PARTNERSHIPS, EVEN IF WE MAKE
FUNDING AVAILABLE THROUGH AB
3019. UNFORTUNATELY, THE STATUS
QUO IS NOT WORKING. FAMILIES
THAT I REPRESENT ASK ME WHY
THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH
TIME FOR THEIR CITY COUNCIL AND
THEIR COUNTY SUPERVISORS TO HOLD
MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE LEAKS
BEFORE ANYONE IS SENT OUT TO
ACTUALLY FIX THE LEAK. THEY
DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT TO JUST
TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEM. THEY
WANT US TO GO FIX THE PROBLEM,
AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT
AFTER THE KIDS STOP GETTING
HEADACHES FROM METHANE EXPOSURE.
AS THE EPICENTER OF OIL
PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA, KERN
COUNTY OPERATORS PAY THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THE FEES THAT GO
INTO THE HAZARDOUS WELL
ABATEMENT FUND. YET KERN AND THE
OTHER OIL PRODUCING COUNTIES
CANNOT ACCESS THESE STATE FUNDS
AND MUST INSTEAD WAIT FOR CAL
GEM TO PLUG WELLS. I AM
COMMITTED TO WORK WITH KERN
CSAC, CAL GEM, AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS TO FIND WAYS TO
EXPEDITE THIS PROCESS SO THAT MY
CONSTITUENTS AND ALL
CALIFORNIANS LIVING NEAR
ORPHANED OIL WELLS HAVE THE
PEACE OF MIND THAT HAZARDOUS
WELLS WILL BE PLUGGED AS QUICKLY
AS POSSIBLE. THESE ARE SOME
COMPLICATED ISSUES, AND THIS
BILL WILL NOT SOLVE EVERY
PROBLEM PROBLEM, BUT PROVIDING A
PATH FOR CAL GEM TO BUILD LOCAL
PARTNERSHIPS WITH COUNTY
GOVERNMENTS AND OIL PRODUCING
REGIONS IS A CRITICAL STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I AM JOINED
TODAY IN SUPPORT BY DYLAN
ELLIOTT ON BEHALF OF KERN COUNTY
. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AS WAS SHARED
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAINES, MY
NAME IS DYLAN ELLIOTT HERE ON
BEHALF OF KERN COUNTY, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE ON AB
3019, WHICH BRINGS ATTENTION TO
THE SERIOUS PROBLEM OF DESERTED
AND ORPHANED WELLS KERN COUNTY
SHARES WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY
THE DISTINCTION OF HAVING OVER
1000 ORPHAN WELLS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF CALCIUM. THESE
WELLS ARE EITHER CLASSIFIED AS
DESERTED, IS OWNED BY A COMPANY
THAT REFUSES TO RESPOND TO
CALCIUM DIRECTIVES OR HAVE BEEN
EFFECTIVELY ABANDONED, HAVE NO
OWNERSHIP, AND ARE NOW
CONSIDERED ORPHAN. CONTRARY TO
IDLE WELLS WHICH HAVE KNOWN
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT.
DESERTED AN ORPHAN WELLS IMPEDE
PROPERTY OWNERS OF USING THE
LAND FOR IMPORTANT ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE,
HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR MANAGING
AND ABANDONING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO
CALCIUM UNDER EXISTING LAW, AND
KERN COUNTY SUPPORTS IN CONCEPT
THE CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN
AB 3019 COUNTIES AND CITIES NEED
TO BE ABLE TO ASSURE OUR
RESIDENTS THAT CAL GEM IS
PROACTIVELY MOVING FORWARD TO
INVESTIGATE THE TITLE OF
DESERTED AND ORPHANED WELLS,
USING MULTIPLE EXPERIENCED
CONTRACTORS TO COMPLETE THE WORK
AND EXPENDING THE MONIES IN THE
HAZARDOUS AND IDLE DESERTED WELL
ABATEMENT FUND IN THE TREASURY
AND TIMELY MANNERS. A SIZABLE
PERCENTAGE OF THOSE FUNDS, AS
WAS SHARED BY THE AUTHOR, COME
FROM KERN COUNTY OIL COMPANIES.
AS SUCH, KERN COUNTY CONTINUES
TO CALL FOR ITS WELLS TO BE
PRIORITIZED, AND CAL GEM TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS AND
CONCERNS IN ITS COMMUNITIES. WE
BELIEVE THIS MEASURE IS A GOOD
START AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR
ON A BILL THAT WILL BENEFIT ALL
COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT
FACE THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE? IS THERE ANY FORMAL
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
JUST WANT TO BE HEARD IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE.
WE'LL NOW TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SECOND, GOT A
MOTION BY MR. KALRA, A SECOND BY
MISS PELLERIN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. AYE VOTE. I HAVE NOT,
ASKED TO COAUTHOR A BILL ALL
DAY. YOU SAID KERN LÀ. CAN WE DO
THIS TOGETHER? CAN I JOIN IN? I
WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. HAPPY EARTH DAY, MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. BRIAN, I BRIAN I
FLORA. FLORA I BAUER. KHN
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER. HOOVER I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I MURATSUCHI.
PATTERSON. PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
WICKS. WOULD WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ABSOLUTELY EDUARDO GARCIA, WE'RE
LOOKING FOR YOU. AND LARA
FRIEDMAN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL
PRESENT FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RODRIGUEZ.
YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
PRESENTING, AB 2776 FOR SOME
MEMBER RODRIGUEZ SECOND. A LOT
OF PRESSURE THERE, BUD. YEAH, I
WAS I WAS TEMPTED TO DO A PHIL
CHIN, BUT I WANT TO DO JUSTICE
TO THIS BILL RIGHT HERE, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK THE INCREDIBLE, ABSOLUTELY
OUTSTANDING COMMITTEE STAFF, AND
I WILL BE TAKING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF MR.
RODRIGUEZ. AS YOU KNOW, THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW THE CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH, AND THE STRATEGIC
GROWTH COUNCIL TO PRIORITIZE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING
RECOVERY PROJECTS IN COMMUNITIES
THAT SUFFERED LOSSES OF
POPULATION AND BUSINESS DUE TO A
DECLARED MAJOR FEDERAL DISASTER.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL
ENCOURAGES CAL OES, OPR, AND THE
STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL TO HELP
COMMUNITIES RECOVER MORE QUICKLY
BY LEVERAGING RESOURCES IN THE
FOLLOWING PROGRAM, THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES HAZARD
MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM,
BUILDING RESILIENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES,
AND CALIFORNIA DISASTER
ASSISTANCE ACT. THIS BILL IS THE
RESULT OF MR. RODRIGUEZ'S VISITS
TO DISASTER SITES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING, PAJARO IN
THE TOWN OF PARADISE. FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE TRAGIC PARADISE FIRE,
THE TOWN IS STILL IN NEED OF A
SEWER SYSTEM IN ORDER TO FULLY
REPLACE HOUSING AND BUSINESSES
THAT WERE LOST. UNFORTUNATELY,
COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES AND FLOODS HAD NEAR
ZERO HOUSING VACANCIES PRIOR TO
DISASTERS, WHICH LIMITS OPTIONS
FOR DISASTER SURVIVORS TO ACCESS
BOTH TEMPORARY AND LONG TERMS.
SHELTER. THIS BILL WILL ENSURE A
WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO
COMMUNITIES THAT SUFFER
CATASTROPHIC LOSSES. FOR ALL
THESE REASONS, I REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE ON BEHALF OF MR. RODRIGUEZ.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT SEEING NONE. ANYONE
IN OPPOSITION IN TO AB 2776.
SEEING NONE. BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTION FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? SEEING NONE.
MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I JUST WANT TO THANK
AGAIN THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
EXCELLENT WORK ON THIS BILL AND
REQUEST FULLY ASK YOUR FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. YOU KNOW THE VICE
CHAIR. HE'S EXPENDABLE, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATION. BRIAN.
AYE. BRIAN. AYE. FLORA. AYE.
FLORA AYE. BAUER. KHN.
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER A. HOOVER. AYE.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA AYE.
MURATSUCHI. PATTERSON. PELLERIN
PELLERIN. AYE. WICKS. WOULD. THE
BILLS GOT FIVE VOTES. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR
FRIEDMAN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR MR.
WOULD WE'RE LOOKING FOR MR.
MURATSUCHI WE ARE LOOKING FOR
THREE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
WHO ARE ALL PRESENTING. AND MR.
GARCIA, WE'RE LOOKING FOR MISS
ERWIN. AT 7 A.M. WE'RE TRYING TO
SHOW. HER? YEAH SOMEONE WILL.
SOMEONE WILL SHOW. ME. OKAY, SO.
WHAT IS DOING? YEAH YEAH, THAT
WOULD.
I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS CLOSED, SO
.
JUST IT'S A REALLY.
JUST.
OH, IS IT HERE? NOW. THANKS, JOE
. AGRICULTURE IT'S NOT ALL BAD.
WE'LL SORT IT OUT LATER. YES,
MA'AM. MISS JACKIE ERWIN. ALL
RIGHT. AB 2320. YES GOOD
AFTERNOON. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 2320 TODAY
AND 2020. GOVERNOR NEWSOM ISSUED
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND 8220,
CREATING THE 30 BY 30 INITIATIVE
TO CONSERVE 30% OF OUR LANDS AND
COASTAL WATERS BY 2030. A KEY
PART OF THE 30 BY 30 INITIATIVE
IS THE USE OF NATURE BASED
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE
CHANGE. AB 2320 WOULD REQUIRE
THE CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES
AGENCY TO IDENTIFY WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS AND FISH PASSAGE
RESTORATION PROJECTS, AND
INCLUDE THEM IN ITS ANNUAL
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE. THIS
BILL WOULD FURTHER REQUIRE THE
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD TO
PRIORITIZE PROJECTS THAT CREATE
AND PROTECT NEW WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS. WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY
IS A CRITICAL STEP IN PROTECTING
CALIFORNIA'S RICH BIODIVERSITY.
LAST YEAR, BB 12, THE FIRST BEAR
KNOWN TO LIVE IN THE SANTA
MONICA MOUNTAINS IN NEARLY A
DECADE, WAS FATALLY STRUCK BY A
VEHICLE CROSSING HIGHWAY 101. HE
HAD SUCCESSFULLY CROSSED
CALIFORNIA FREEWAYS AT LEAST
FIVE TIMES AND WAS KILLED 16
MILES FROM THE ONGOING
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LARGEST
WILDLIFE CROSSING IN THE COUNTRY
, THE ANNENBERG WILDLIFE
CROSSING IN MY DISTRICT, STORIES
SUCH AS THOSE OF BB 12 AND P 22,
THE MOUNTAIN LION, ARE A
TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT WE
MUST INCREASE HABITAT
CONNECTIVITY FOR CALIFORNIA'S
WILDLIFE. WITH ME HERE TO
TESTIFY ARE THE BILL'S SPONSORS,
JOSH HUG WITH THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE AND CANDICE
MÀ CHEN MENDOCINE. SHE'LL
PRONOUNCE HER NAME CORRECTLY
WHEN SHE INTRODUCES HERSELF ON
BEHALF OF FRIENDS OF THE SANTA
CLARA RIVER. I THINK I'VE GOTTEN
IT WRONG EVERY TIME SO FAR. SO I
DO APOLOGIZE TO TWO MINUTES
EACH. ALL RIGHT. GOOD.
AFTERNOON, CHAIR BRIAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CANDICE MENEGON, AND I'M A BOARD
MEMBER WITH FRIENDS OF THE SANTA
CLARA RIVER, WE PROTECT CULTURAL
AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACROSS
VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES
. AND WHILE CALIFORNIA HAS
PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, LESS WORK
HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON PROTECTING
AND RESTORING WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
AND FISH PASSAGE AND
FRAGMENTATION OF NATURAL AREAS
IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF
SPECIES DECLINE IN CALIFORNIA,
AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND
HABITAT CONNECTIVITY ARE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND SPECIES
ADAPTATION IN TIMES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE. VENTURA COUNTY IS HOME
TO A WILDLIFE AND HABITAT,
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND HABITAT
CONNECTIVITY ORDINANCE, WHICH
WAS PRECEDENT SITTING THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. AND THIS REALLY JUST
IS ANOTHER STEP TO PROTECTING
AND, PROMOTING WILDLIFE
CONNECTIVITY ACROSS THE
LANDSCAPE, IN 2010, THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
AND CALTRANS PRODUCED THE STATE
ESSENTIAL HABITAT CONNECTIVITY
REPORT THAT IDENTIFIED KEY
LOCATIONS WHERE WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS AND CROSSINGS ARE
NEEDED, WE HAVE Ã ESSENTIAL
WILDLIFE CROSSING NEED ON THE
I-5 IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA
RIVER WATERSHED AND AS WELL AS
ON THE CONEJO GRADE IN VENTURA
COUNTY AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
IRWIN'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS IS
REALLY HELPING TO SUPPORT THESE
CONNECTIVITY ESSENTIAL HABITAT
NEEDS ACROSS THE STATE, AND
ULTIMATELY, AB 2320 IS A PUSH TO
IMPLEMENT N N PRIORITIES IN
THESE REPORTS BY ADDING WILDLIFE
CONNECTIVITY ACTIONS INTO THE 30
BY 30 INITIATIVE. CONNECTIVITY
IS ESSENTIAL TO BIODIVERSITY
RESILIENCE. IT REALLY UNDERPINS
OUR BIODIVERSITY RESILIENCE, AND
BOLSTERS 30 BY 30 OBJECTIVES, AS
WELL AS THE GOVERNOR'S SALMON
STRATEGY FOR A HOTTER AND DRIER
FUTURE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TODAY AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. TWO MINUTES. EXACTLY. WELL
DONE. YOUR TURN. I'LL ASPIRE TO
THAT LEVEL OF PUNCTUAL NESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOSH
HUG, AND I'D BE REMISS IF I
DIDN'T WISH YOU ALSO HAPPY EARTH
DAY, MY NAME IS JOSH HUG. I'M
THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS PROGRAM
MANAGER FOR THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. AB
2320 IS NECESSARY LEGISLATION
DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF CALIFORNIA'S 30
BY 30 INITIATIVE AND CREATES
FUNCTIONAL, RESILIENT HABITATS
TO PRESERVE CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUE
BIODIVERSITY. SINCE ITS CREATION
IN 1972, MIDPEN OR DISTRICT IS
ALSO KNOWN AS MIDPEN. MIDPEN HAS
PURSUED THE GOALS OF 30 BY 30,
WITH OVER 70,000 ACRES OF OPEN
SPACE, PROTECTED AND RESTORED ON
THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA. OUR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY,
WHICH GUIDES OUR LAND
ACQUISITION AND CONSERVATION
WORK, PRIORITIZES THE PROTECTION
OF LARGE LAND, LARGE LANDSCAPE
BLOCKS AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS,
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS MAY BE
EXTENSIVE CONTIGUOUS NATURAL
AREAS, SUITABLE FOR WIDE RANGING
ORGANISMS. A STREAM WITH
CONTINUOUS, WIDE BUFFER,
RIPARIAN VEGETATION, OR EVEN A
TUNNEL OR CULVERT BENEATH A
HIGHWAY THAT ALLOWS PASSAGE FOR
ANIMALS. TO THAT END, MIDPEN HAS
A WILDLIFE CROSSING UNDER
HIGHWAY 17 ABOVE THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS, WHICH HAS SERVED AS A
SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO WILDLIFE
MOVEMENT ON AND OFF THE SAN
FRANCISCO PENINSULA, AND
CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENETIC
DEGRADATION OF THE MOUNTAIN LION
POPULATION THERE. A SPECIES
PROVISIONALLY LISTED AS
THREATENED BY CDF, W PRESERVING
CONTIGUOUS NATURAL HABITATS, IS
KEY TO PRESERVING BIODIVERSITY
IN A CHANGING WORLD. WHEN A
SPECIES IS REDUCED TO A FEW
ISOLATED POPULATIONS DUE TO
FRAGMENTATION OF ITS HABITAT, A
NATURAL STRESSOR SUCH AS FIRE OR
DROUGHT CAN WIPE OUT A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE
POPULATION, OF THE REMNANT
POPULATION, BRINGING IT CLOSER
TO EXTINCTION. CONNECTED
HABITATS HELP SPECIES RESPOND TO
CHANGES IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. IN
SUMMARY, 23 AB 2320 IS CRUCIAL
AS IT ADDRESSES THE PRESSING
NEED TO IDENTIFY AND SAFEGUARD
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS IN CALIFORNIA
TO MITIGATE HABITAT
FRAGMENTATION, PRESERVE
BIODIVERSITY AND ADAPT TO THE
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON
WILDLIFE POPULATIONS ACROSS THE
STATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU SIR. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS
IN THIS HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THIS MEASURE? GOOD
AFTERNOON, ABIGAIL SCHMIDT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PARKS FOUNDATION, THE LAND TRUST
OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY AND THE
SEMPERVIRENS FUND, ALL IN
SUPPORT. HI. CHRISTINA MOHABEER
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
HELLO. JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HELLO, TASHA NEWMAN
ON BEHALF OF PENINSULA OPEN
SPACE TRUST IN SUPPORT. HI, ALEX
LIMMER, ON BEHALF OF DEFENDERS
OF WILDLIFE, SONOMA LAND TRUST,
AUDUBON CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC
FOREST TRUST IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, ADAM HARPER,
CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. HI NATALIE BROWN WITH
THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
LEAGUE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE, ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MR. CARR. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL, I REALLY I REALLY
APPRECIATE, THE AUTHOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I'VE DONE ANOTHER
NUMBER OF BILLS IN THE 30 BY 30
SPACE, INCLUDING KIND OF
REPORTING AND KIND OF FOLLOW UP
ON KIND OF HOW WE'RE
PROGRESSING. AND I THINK IT'S A
GREAT IDEA TO HAVE SPECIFICITY
REGARDING REGARDING WILDLIFE
CORRIDORS OF OVER THE YEARS,
WORKED WITH MID-PEN AND OPEN
SPACE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS AND
THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY, SAN
MATEO COUNTY AREA IN THE BAY
AREA, JUST LIKE YOU'VE DONE WORK
IN YOUR AREA. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
IRWIN, AND I THINK IT NOT ONLY
IN TERMS OF PROTECTING THE
WILDLIFE AND PROTECTING
BIODIVERSITY, BUT BUT I THINK
IT'S A CRITICAL ASPECT OF US
ACHIEVING OUR 30 BY 30 GOALS,
AND I THINK THAT AS WE IDENTIFY
THESE CORRIDORS AND NÓ, YOU KNOW
, IN WHAT MANNERS TO INVEST IN
THEM, I THINK THAT IT WILL ALSO
LEAD TO MORE EFFECTIVE KIND OF
USE OF OUR OPEN SPACES BY THE
COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITIES
GENERALLY LOVE THAT CONCEPT OF
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, BUT WE NEED
TO PUT, I THINK, EVEN MORE
ACTION BEHIND WHAT WE CAN DO IN
A MORE COMPREHENSIVE WAY, AS
OPPOSED TO LIKE ONE OFFS, LIKE
WHETHER IT'S 17 OR SANTA CLARITA
OR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE COYOTE
VALLEY, I NK TO HAVE A
COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF IT WILL BE
REALLY GREAT FOR OUR LONG TIME
PLANNING. SO I APPRECIATE IT AND
WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED. AS A
COAUTHOR. MISS PELLERIN, I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I'VE
BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO JOIN JOSH
AND MID-PEN ON SOME OF THE TOURS
AROUND THE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS,
AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
AND I TOO WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR. THANKS WE HAVE.
MISS IRWIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE AND, JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU
ARE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS? YES, I AM, AND JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
AWESOME CAN I ALSO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR? OH, WOW. LET'S GO
AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR DAY. HAPPY
EARTH DAY. IT'S LIKE A HOME RUN
TODAY. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE
CALL THE ROLL? THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN, I BRIAN I
FLORA A FLORA I BAUER-KAHAN
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I HOOVER.
HOOVER I CHOLERA CHOLERA I
MURATSUCHI PATTERSON. PELLERIN.
PELLERIN I WICKS WOULD.
CONGRATULATIONS. IT HAS SIX
VOTES. IT'S OUT. MISS FRIEDMAN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO? YEAH
ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. WE'RE. WE ARE
READY FOR YOU. DID YOU WANT TO
START WITH 3155? I'M GOING TO
START WITH 3155. PERFECT I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THE
EXCELLENT AND THOROUGH ANALYSIS.
AB 3155 PROTECTS VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES LOCATED NEAR OIL AND
GAS WELLS BY HOLDING OIL
COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
HEALTH RAMIFICATIONS OF
NEIGHBORHOOD DRILLING, WHILE
INCENTIVIZING OIL COMPANIES TO
USE THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE POLLUTION
AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES. OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 5.5 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS WHO LIVE WITHIN A
MILE OR A MILE OF ONE OR MORE
OIL AND GAS WELLS, ONE THIRD
LIVE IN AREAS THAT ARE THE MOST
BURDENED BY ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION. THIS PROXIMITY BRINGS
DISASTROUS HEALTH IMPLICATIONS,
INCLUDING INCREASED RISK OF
ASTHMA AND OTHER RESPIRATORY
ILLNESSES, PRETUM BIRTHS AND
HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES AND
CANCER. IN 2015, THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY REVIEWED EXISTING
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND
DETERMINED THAT FROM A PUBLIC
HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO TOXIC
AIR CONTAMINANTS OCCUR WITHIN
ONE HALF MILE OF A WELL. THEY
RECOMMENDED THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEVELOP SCIENCE
BACKED SETBACK SCIENCE BACKED
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WELLS
TO LIMIT THESE EXPOSURES. THE
LEGISLATURE FOLLOWED THAT
GUIDANCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB
1137. IN 2022. FOR THESE
REASONS, SO MORE THAN ALMOST
OVER 28,000 OPERATIONAL OIL AND
GAS WELLS ARE WITHIN 3200FT OF A
HOME HOSPITAL, SCHOOL OR OTHER
SENSITIVE RECEPTOR. THE NUMBER
OF EXISTING WELLS AND A
POTENTIAL NEW WELLS NEAR THESE.
THESE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IS A
SERIOUS HEALTH CONCERN TO THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING AROUND
THEM, AND FOR THE REST OF US IN
CALIFORNIA, FOR THESE REASONS,
IT'S IMPERATIVE THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY, IF THEY'RE GOING TO
LOCATE THESE FACILITIES IN
COMMUNITIES NEAR SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS THAT THEY USE THE
MOST, THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY TO FILTER THE AIR AND
THE POLLUTION TO PROTECT
COMMUNITIES WITHOUT HAVING A
REAL INCENTIVE, A CARROT AND A
STICK APPROACH. THEY'RE JUST NOT
GOING TO DO THAT. AND WE KNOW
THAT BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN WHAT
HAPPENS ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND
THE OIL AND THE GAS INDUSTRY
SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IF
THEY'RE NOT USING THE BEST
TECHNOLOGY FOR ANY IMPACTS ON
COMMUNITIES. AB 3155 CREATES A
LIABILITY PRESUMPTION TO HOLD
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY HARM THAT
THEY'VE CAUSED CALIFORNIANS THAT
RESULT THAT RESIDE NEAR THEIR
WELLHEAD AND PRODUCTION
FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY, AB 31
PROVIDES THAT AFTER JANUARY 1ST,
2025, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF
THESE WELLS AND FACILITIES BE
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR
A RESPIRATORY AILMENT DIAGNOSED
AFTER JANUARY FIRST, 2025, AND A
SENIOR OR CHILD A NEAR TERME
BIRTH OR A HIGH RISK PREGNANCY
SUFFERED BY A PREGNANT PERSON OR
AND A PERSON'S CANCER DIAGNOSIS.
THE PRESUMPTION APPLIES JOINTLY
AND SEVERALLY SEVERALLY TO AN
OPERATOR OR OWNER, BUT ONLY
APPLIES, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT.
FIRST, IF THE FACILITY OR WELL
IS LOCATED IN THE SAME HEALTH
PROTECTION ZONE WHERE THESE
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS RESIDE
FOR MORE THAN 24 CUMULATIVE
MONTHS. TWO IF THE RESPIRATORY
AILMENTS AND SENIORS AND
CHILDREN PRETUM OR HIGH RISK
PREGNANCIES AND CANCERS, AND
THREE ONLY IF THE OIL AND GAS
FACILITY LOCATED IN SUCH A ZONE
HAS FAILED TO OPERATIONALIZE THE
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL AND
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY TO
PROTECT ITS MOST VULNERABLE
NEIGHBORS. SO IF THEY DO THAT,
THEY'RE OFF THE HOOK FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL.
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF OUR
SPONSORS IS JAMIE COURT WITH
CONSUMER WATCHDOG AND CALEB
KARIMI WITH THE CENTER FOR RACE,
POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CALEB
KARIMI, HERE REPRESENTING THE
CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. CRP IS COMMITTED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND
UPLIFTING UNDERREPRESENT
COMMUNITIES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN FOR
INTRODUCING AB 3155, A CRUCIAL
BILL FOR HOLDING OIL
CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
DEVASTATING HARMS THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. AT CRP, WE WORK
CLOSELY WITH COMMUNITIES TO
ADVOCATE FOR THEIR NEEDS AND
PUBLIC HEALTH. WE HAVE SEEN OUR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO LIVE NEAR
OIL AND GAS WELLS DEVELOP
ASTHMA. CANCER, ADVERSE
PREGNANCY OUTCOMES AND MORE. AN
INCREDIBLE BODY OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT LIVING NEAR
OIL AND GAS WELLS AND OIL AND
GAS EXTRACTION CAUSES THESE
HARMS. IT IS PAST TIME FOR THESE
OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. NOTHING CAN EVER
MAKE THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED A
MISCARRIAGE OR CANCER WHOLE
AGAIN. HOWEVER THIS BILL ALLOWS
HARMED PEOPLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE
BY CREATING A PRESUMPTIVE
PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY IN
FAVOR OF PEOPLE WHO SUFFER
CERTAIN RELATED HEALTH HARMS AND
RESIDE WITHIN 3200FT OF A WELL.
OIL COMPANIES CAN STILL OVERCOME
THIS PRESUMPTION BY EMPLOYING
THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL HARM. THIS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS KEY
BECAUSE IT INCENTIVIZE REYES OIL
COMPANIES TO DO AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES AND STOP HARMS
BEFORE THEY HAPPEN. OUR
COMMUNITIES DESERVE AND AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES NOT
DESERVE TO LIVE IN AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES NOT GIVE
THEM CANCER, LOSE A PREGNANCY,
OR GIVE THEM RESPIRATORY ISSUES
AS SUCH, OUR ORGANIZATION
SUPPORTS AB 3155 TO ASSIST OUR
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FROM
FURTHER UNJUST HARMS. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO VOTE YES ON AB 3155. THANK
YOU. I'M JAMIE COURT. I'M
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSUMER
WATCHDOG. YOU KNOW, 2.7 MILLION
PEOPLE LIVE WITHIN A HALF MILE
OF AN OIL WELL. AND THESE PEOPLE
ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY EXPOSED
TO ILLNESSES RELATED TO THE
DRILLING, IN 2021, CAL GEMS
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL FOUND
A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN
RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES AND
PRENATAL DEFECTS AND LIVING
WITHIN A HALF MILE OF AN OIL
WELL. WE KNOW FIVE OF THE 12
TOXICS THAT ARE USED IN OIL
WELLS ARE CARCINOGENS. THEY
CAUSE CANCER. AND WE KNOW FROM
STUDIES THAT THERE IS A DIRECT
LINK BETWEEN OIL PRODUCTION
LIVING IN PROXIMITY OF AN OIL
PRODUCTION. WELL AND GETTING
CANCER ACROSS ALL TYPES. SO WHAT
DO OIL DRILLERS HAVE TO DO TO
GET OUT OF THIS BILL?
PRESUMPTIVE LIABILITY? THEY HAVE
TO DO ONE THING. THEY GOT TO USE
THE BEST POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE, THAT IS COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE. ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO
IS USE THE BEST TECHNOLOGY. AND
THE REASON THEY DON'T DO IT
TODAY IS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE
COMMUNITIES ARE EXPENDABLE, AND
THE PRODUCTION IN THESE OIL
WELLS ARE VERY SMALL. WE KNOW ON
AVERAGE, AN OIL WELL IN A
SETBACK ZONE PRODUCES TWO
BARRELS OF OIL A DAY. TWO
BARRELS OF OIL. AND IS IT WORTH
IMPLEMENTING THE BEST POLLUTION
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR WHAT IS
THE EQUIVALENT OF $160 A DAY?
THIS BILL SAYS, WELL, IF YOU'RE
GOING TO DRILL IN COMMUNITIES,
YOU CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE BEST
POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT THOSE
COMMUNITIES. IT IS NOT UNLIKE
WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE GUN
MAKERS. FIREARMS MAKERS HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN
THIS STATE, OR THEY ARE
PRESUMPTIVELY LIABLE WHEN
SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH A GUN
AND DRILLING IS AT LEAST AS
DANGEROUS AS BUILDING A GUN. SO
ON EARTH DAY, I ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JAMIE, ARE
THERE ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE?
GOOD AFTERNOON, KATIE VALENZUELA
ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY
AIR QUALITY COALITION. ALSO, AS
A KID WHO GREW UP IN OILDALE,
KERN COUNTY, ENCOURAGING YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHRISTINA
MOHABEER WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO. JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MY
NAME IS DAN JACOBSON WITH
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA AND
CALPIRG IN STRONG SUPPORT. I WAS
ASKED TO READ THE OTHER 64 NAMES
ON HERE, BUT WAS TOLD IN LIGHT
OF THE LATE HOUR IT MIGHT BE
WISE JUST TO REFERENCE THE
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. THAT IS
VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. DO WE
HAVE ANY FORMAL OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? CHAIRMAN GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SHE BOUGHT YOU SOME TIME,
THEO. SHE DID. PAUL. DIEGO. MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS REPRESENTING
THE WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION, THIS IS A BIG BILL.
THE BILL WOULD EFFECTIVELY
ESTABLISH AN UNPRECEDENTED
PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY ON OIL
OPERATORS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WITH WITHOUT
REQUIRING ANY PROOF THAT A WELL
CAUSED ANY HARM. THE BILL WOULD
MAKE THE LEGISLATURE BE THE
FINDER OF FACT WHEN IT COMES TO
THE CRITICAL ISSUE OF CAUSATION
IN CERTAIN DAMAGES, GUILT IS NOT
DECIDED BY THE COURTS OR THE
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. IT'S
GOING TO BE DECIDED BY YOU.
THERE IS NO SAFE HARBOR IN THE
BILL THAT THE, THE, THE
PROPONENTS HAVE HAVE MENTIONED.
IT PROVIDES TWO METHODS OF
OVERCOMING ITS PRESUMPTION. ONE,
AN OPERATOR USING BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY THAT ELIMINATES,
REDUCES, OR PREVENTS AIR
POLLUTION. SOIL AND WATER
CONTAMINATION, AND WASTE TO THE
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF PROTECTION
POSSIBLE. THAT IS EXTREMELY
VAGUE AND NOT A SAFE HARBOR. SO
IF WE WE'RE STILL ON THE HOOK,
EVEN IF WE'RE USING THE BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ACCORDING
TO THE DEFINITION AND THE BILL,
THE, THE DEFINITION IS VAGUE AND
BROAD AND IT IT ALSO WAS YOU
HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARD TO THE
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF PROTECTION
POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS, AND NEITHER DO OUR
ATTORNEYS. THE TECHNOLOGY MUST
BE OPERATED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION
AT FULL CAPACITY FOR A TWO YEAR
PERIOD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT FULL
CAPACITY MEANS, NOR DOES OUR
ATTORNEY, THE OPERATOR MUST
DEMONSTRATE THAT AN OIL FACILITY
WAS NOT IN WHOLE OR PART THE
CAUSE OF THE ILLNESS. THE BURDEN
ON THE DEFENDANT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO MEET OR IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET.
AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE
THE STUDIES CITED BY THE
PROPONENTS, SPECIFICALLY, ONLY
THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDY
ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DATA
TO SUPPORT A SHOWING OF ADVERSE
IMPACTS FROM OIL AND GAS
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA. THE
CCST 2015 STUDY, PAGE 63.
CALIFORNIA IMPACTS MAY BE
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AND MAY
NOT HAVE BEEN THAT HAVE NOT HAVE
BEEN MEASURED. IN ADDITION TO
THE SCIENCE PANEL USED BY THE,
THE ADMINISTRATION, THERE THERE
ARE MULTIPLE MISTAKES AND
OVERSTATEMENTS AND THE, THE
REPORTS UTILIZED BY THE SCIENCE
PANEL WERE, WERE THOSE DONE BY
THE PANEL ITSELF? WE HAVE
DISAGREEMENTS ON THE SCIENCE ON
THIS. AND WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR
NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A
GENEROUS 245. THANK YOU VERY,
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, I'LL BE
VERY QUICK, WE JUST HAD A
HEALTHY DEBATE ABOUT METHANE
METHANE EMISSIONS AS IT RELATED
TO DAIRY OPERATIONS, ÓRDENES AND
THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGE THAT THAT
COULD CAUSE. THE SAME THING
APPLIES HERE. AS, AS AS WE PASS
BILLS LIKE THIS, I THINK THE
COMMITTEE SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE
MINDFUL, AS SHOULD THE WHOLE
ASSEMBLY, THAT AS WE MAKE IT
THAT DIFFICULT FOR OIL OPERATORS
TO OPERATE HERE, THAT THEY WILL
HAVE TO TAKE THEIR OPERATIONS IN
OTHER STATES. WE HAVE SPENT THE
LAST DECADE OR SO, WITH THE
COOPERATION OF SOMETIMES WITH
THIS INDUSTRY, ON REGULATING
EXACTLY WHAT WE DO IN MITIGATING
FOR THE EFFECT. SO WE HAVE
GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS, WE
HAVE CAP AND TRADE, WE HAVE AIR
EMISSION RESTRICTIONS HERE, ALL
OF THESE THAT DO NOT APPLY IN
OTHER STATES. WE ALSO HAVE AN
RFPS FOR OUR ELECTRIC SERVICE.
AND OFTENTIMES THESE OIL FIELDS
RUN ON ENERGY THAT'S EVEN
CLEANER THAN GRID ENERGY BECAUSE
THEY'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH
LCFS ALL THOSE ALL THAT GOES OUT
THE DOOR WHEN AN OPERATOR LEAVES
CALIFORNIA AND GOES ELSEWHERE TO
FILL CALIFORNIA'S DEMAND. SO
JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE
COMMITTEE, OF THAT FACT, THIS IS
THIS IS A LEAKAGE PROBLEM. WE
ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL FOR
THOSE REASONS AND THE REASONS
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? THANK
YOU. MEMBERS. ROB SPIEGEL,
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MIKE WEST, ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING TRADES. ALSO
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
COURTNEY JENSEN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION, YOU,
DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF KERN
COUNTY, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. NOW, TURNING
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO THE
BILL SECOND MOTION BY CARRA,
SECOND BY PELLERIN. MISS
FRIEDMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, I WOULD REQUEST FULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT EFFORT, PART OF A
LARGER CONVERSATION THAT I THINK
THE LEGISLATURE IS HAVING, THIS
YEAR AND BEGAN A COUPLE YEARS
AGO, AND I'M ENCOURAGED TO SEE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS ONES, GOING.
I ALSO WANT TO SEND A SHOUT OUT
TO NAYELI COBO, A GOOD FRIEND
WHO'S PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL
ROLE IN GETTING THIS BILL TO
THIS POINT, AND HAS A DIRECT
LIVED EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD BE
HARD TO TURN AWAY FROM IF YOU
HEARD IT, THIS BILL HAS A DUE
PASS RECOMMENDATION. THÀNH.
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN, I BRIAN I
FLORA. NO. FLORA. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN FRIEDMAN A FRIEDMAN
I HOOVER. KOLLER COLLURA I
MURATSUCHI PATTERSON. NO.
PATTERSON. NO. PELLERIN
PELLERIN, I WICKS. WOOD WOOD. I
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. THANK
YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE,
MISS FRIEDMAN? YES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2762. GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN. I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND YOUR EXCELLENT
COMMITTEE STAFF. ELIZABETH FOR
ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS
BILL OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS. I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED BETWEEN
OUR STAFF AND OUTLINED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. CALIFORNIANS
CONCERNED MORE THAN 30 BILLION
BEVERAGES IN SINGLE USE
CONTAINERS, MOSTLY PLASTIC AND
ALUMINUM, EACH YEAR. AND WHILE
THE BOTTLE BILL HAS BEEN
SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL IN
COLLECTING AND ULTIMATELY
MANAGING SINGLE USE BOTTLES, WE
CAN UTILIZE THE EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE
PROGRAM TO REDUCE AND REUSE, AS
WELL. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR
POLICIES DO NOT REFLECT THE
PRIORITIES OF THE THREE R'S
REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, WHICH
TAUGHT US BETTER TO REDUCE AND
REUSE RATHER THAN ONLY FOCUS ON
TRYING TO RECYCLE. AB 2762
REQUIRES BY JANUARY 1ST, 2031,
NO LESS THAN 5. AND I REPEAT,
THIS IS ONLY 5% OF THE VOLUME OF
BEVERAGES THAT A BEVERAGE
MANUFACTURER SELLS IN BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS IN CALIFORNIA BE SOLD
IN REUSABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS,
ALONG WITH PERIODIC INCREASES TO
THOSE PERCENTAGES, AND THAT THE
BEVERAGE MANUFACTURE FEATURES
ENSURE REUSABLE BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS ARE RETURNED FOR
REUSE, STARTING AT 60% AND
INCREASING PERIODICALLY SO WE'RE
TALKING 60% OF THE 5. THE DATA
SHOWS THAT A REUSABLE GLASS
BOTTLE HAS 85% LOWER GHG
EMISSIONS THAN SINGLE USE GLASS,
75% LOWER GHG EMISSIONS THAN
SINGLE USE PLASTIC, AND 57%
LOWER GHG EMISSIONS THAN
ALUMINUM CANS. MEANWHILE, TENS
10 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL IS
USED ANNUALLY TO PRODUCE THE
PLASTIC BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
CONSUMED IN THE STATE, RESULTING
IN 426 MILLION METRIC TONS OF
CO2 EMISSIONS PER YEAR,
ACCORDING TO RECENT STUDIES.
MICRO AND NANOPARTICLES IN
PLASTIC BOTTLES HAVE BEEN LINKED
TO INCREASED RISK OF CARDIO
CARDIAC DISEASE, INCLUDING HEART
ATTACK AND STROKE, AND TO
NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES SUCH AS
ALZHEIMER'S AND AUTISM, AND MANY
OTHER NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS.
REUSABLE BOTTLES, ON THE OTHER
HAND, NOT ONLY REDUCE BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS THAT CAN BE LITTERED
AND POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT
ALSO ELIMINATE PLASTIC POLLUTION
RIGHT AT THEIR SOURCE. MY OFFICE
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY AROUND SB
1013. COMPLIANCE SHOULD THE BILL
MOVE FORWARD TODAY. TESTIFYING
AND SUPPORT THIS AFTERNOON IS
MIRIAM GORDON, REUSE PROGRAM
DIRECTOR FOR THE STORY OF STUFF
PROJECT, AND ADAM RACK WITH
RAVINO. I APPRECIATE YOUR
THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION OF THIS
BILL. AND REQUEST FULLY. REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR BRIAN AND ESTEEMED
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS MIRIAM GORDON. I'M THE
REUSE DIRECTOR FOR THE STORY OF
STUFF, A NATIONAL NGO THAT
FOCUSES ON CHANGING HOW WE
PRODUCE, CONSUME AND DISPOSE OF
ALL THE STUFF IN OUR LIVES.
DURING MY TWO MINUTES OF
TESTIMONY ON THIS EARTH DAY, 2
MILLION PLASTIC BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS WILL BE PRODUCED.
EACH YEAR, 15 MILLION TONS OF
PLASTIC ENTER THE OCEAN. THAT'S
TWO GARBAGE TRUCKS PER MINUTE,
AND PLASTIC BOTTLES ARE THE
SECOND LARGEST SOURCE. THE BEST
APPROACH TO SINGLE. WE CAN'T
RECYCLE OUR WAY OUT OF THIS
PROBLEM. RECYCLING DOESN'T
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR VIRGIN
CONTENT, AS CONTAINERS CAN'T BE
INFINITELY RECYCLED. THAT MEANS
COMMUNITIES ON THE FRONT LINES
OF PRODUCTION, LIKE THOSE IN
CANCER ALLEY IN LOUISIANA, ARE
STILL BEING HARMED. THE BEST
APPROACH TO SINGLE USE PACKAGING
IS TO MAKE LESS OF IT. A
REUSABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER
ELIMINATES AN 15 TO 25 SINGLE
USE CONTAINERS, ACCORDING TO
OCEANA, A 10% SWITCH TO REUSABLE
BEVERAGES IN COASTAL AREAS WOULD
MEAN 22% LESS PLASTIC IN THE
OCEAN, AND REUSABLE GLASS
BOTTLES SIGNIFICANTLY CUT CARBON
EMISSIONS AS WELL. 23% OF GLOBAL
BEVERAGE SALES ARE IN REUSABLE
CONTAINERS. THIS REUSABLE COKE
BOTTLE, SOLD AT RESTAURANTS IN
TEXAS CAME FROM MEXICO, WHICH
SELLS 27% OF ITS BEVERAGES IN
REUSABLE CARS, WHILE 170
COUNTRIES STILL HAVE REUSABLE
BEVERAGE SYSTEMS IN PLACE.
EUROPEAN AND LATIN AMERICAN
COUNTRIES ARE TURNING TO
MANDATING REUSE TARGETS TO
COUNTER THE INCREASING
TRANSITION TO SINGLE USE
PLASTIC. IN MARCH, THE EU
FINALIZED A POLICY REQUIRING THE
BEVERAGE INDUSTRY TO ACHIEVE 10%
REUSE BY 2030 AND 40% BY 2040.
REUSE REPRESENTS A GREAT
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN
CALIFORNIA. IT CREATES 7 TO 9
TIMES MORE JOBS THAN RECYCLING
AND SAVES BOTTLERS MONEY AS THEY
PURCHASE FEWER CONTAINERS. AS
THE PLASTIC INDUSTRY CONTINUES
TO EXPAND, PRODUCTION OAN.
WHILE THE CLIMATE IS REACHING
DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS TIPPING
POINTS, WE URGE YOU TO TAKE
IMMEDIATE AND MEANINGFUL ACTION
AND RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. HERE WE GO. FIRST OFF,
HELLO, EVERYBODY, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE,
CHAIR BRIAN, IN CALIFORNIA ALONE
, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT 30
BILLION SINGLE USE CONTAINERS
EVERY YEAR, THIS PROPOSED BILL
OFFERS A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY TO
TURN THE TIDE ON SINGLE USE
PACKAGING AND EMBRACE A MORE
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. MY NAME IS
ADAM RACK. I'M A CO-FOUNDER OF
RAVINO, A COMPANY DEDICATED TO
REVIVING THE REUSABLE GLASS
BOTTLE ECOSYSTEM. I'M STARTING
WITH THE WINE INDUSTRY WITH THE
GOAL OF OFFERING SERVICES TO THE
BROADER BEVERAGE INDUSTRY. I AND
MY TEAM HAVE SPENT YEARS
RESEARCHING AND IMPLEMENTING
REUSE SYSTEMS WHILE
COLLABORATING WITH ADVISORS AND
REUSE LEADERS FROM AROUND THE
WORLD. WE HAVE INCREDIBLE
ENGAGEMENT FROM THE INDUSTRY. IN
OUR FIRST YEAR, OVER 60 WINERIES
HAVE SIGNED ON AND OVER 75
HELPED US DESIGN THIS BOTTLE
RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED, SORTED
OUT BY FROM WASTE STREAMS AS WE
KNOW THEM. WE HAVE CLEAR
DIRECTIVES AND STANDARDS WITHIN
THIS REUSE BILL AS OUTLINED, ARE
ESSENTIAL TO SCALE QUICKLY AND
EXPAND REUSE TO ADDITIONAL
MARKET SEGMENTS. THEY ALLOW
COMPANIES LIKE RAVINO TO
LEVERAGE EXISTING GRANTS AND
PRIVATE INVESTMENTS MORE
EFFECTIVELY, LEADING TO A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN REUSABLE
BOTTLE USE AND WASTE DIVERSION
FROM LANDFILLS WHILE SAVING
ENERGY AND FINITE RESOURCES. AS
WITH FAST GROWTH AND MARKET
SATURATION, ENCOURAGED BY THESE
POLICIES, REUSE SYSTEMS BECOME
MORE EFFICIENT AND COST
EFFECTIVE. THIS LOWERS THE
BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR OTHER
BEVERAGE PRODUCERS. REGARDLESS
OF SIZE. BY CREATING A ROBUST
CONTAINER REUSE MARKET WITH
ECONOMIES OF SCALE, REUSABLE
BOTTLES ARE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL
GLOBALLY, INCLUDING OUR HOME
STATE OF OREGON, WHERE A
REUSABLE BEER BOTTLE PROGRAM HAS
COLLECTED THESE ASIDE ALONGSIDE
STANDARD DEPOSIT RETURN SYSTEMS
AND WITH AN INNOVATIVE BACKDROP.
PROGRAMS OPERATED BY OBK. SINCE
2018, THE BEER STORE IN CANADA
REPORTED 98% OF ALL REFILLABLE
BEER BOTTLES SOLD IN ONTARIO
WERE RETURNED AND REUSED LAST
YEAR. TYING, REUSE, AND EXISTING
DEPOSIT INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE
THOSE SYSTEMS GREATLY IMPROVES
EFFICIENCIES AND CONVENIENCE OF
RETURNS FOR CONSUMERS. RECENT
INVESTMENTS IN POLICY CHANGES BY
YOU AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE CRV
INFRASTRUCTURE REPRESENTS A
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. BY ENACTING
THIS BILL, CALIFORNIA CAN BECOME
A NATIONAL LEADER IN THE
CONTAINER USE MOVEMENT, SETTING
AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER STATES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. DYLAN
ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. SAMANTHA
SAMUELSON IN SUPPORT ON BEHALF
OF CUP ZERO CLEAN WATER ACTION,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING
ASSOCIATION. SAVE OUR SHORES,
FIVE GYRES, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
AND THE SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE
ACTION NETWORK. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, TONY
HACKETT FROM CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU TONY, DO YOU HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
WHAT'S UP DENNIS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DENNIS ALBIANI, ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER BRANDS
ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN
BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION. THÀNH. SO
THE WE HAVE A VERY, VERY
SUCCESSFUL BOTTLE BILL. AND WE
ARE INNOVATING AS DISCUSSED WITH
WITH RETURN PROGRAMS, BAG DROP
PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY. WE
CURRENTLY HAVE A 76% RETURN RATE
WITH WITH PLASTIC. AND ALUMINUM
IS JUST SLIGHTLY HIGHER. JUST
UNDER 80. AND WE WERE CLOSE TO
80% PRIOR TO COVID. SO WE'RE
GROWING AND THAT WILL CONTINUE
TO GROW. WE HAVE INVESTED
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THAT DOES
NEED TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN
THAT INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE
TO ACHIEVE THE EVEN HIGHER RATES
. THEN WE'VE LAID ON THE
LEGISLATURE, SB 54, AND THAT'S
AN EPR MODEL, WHICH WILL TAKE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
INVESTMENT OVER TIME TO BE ABLE
TO IMPLEMENT THE EPR MODEL FOR
PACKAGING, AS WELL. AND THEN IT
ALSO HAS REDUCTION MANDATES,
WHICH WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENT. AND THEN THIS BILL
REQUIRES A THIRD POLICY
DIRECTION WITH A THIRD SET OF
INFRASTRUCTURE AND BRINGS UP A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ISSUES
THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITH ALL THE
OTHER MODELS AND CHALLENGES
EVERYWHERE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO
BE A CHALLENGE HERE, SUCH AS
COLLECTION. ARE WE GOING TO DO
THIS A GROCERY STORES, YOU TELL
YOU. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT NEITHER THE GROCERY STORE
NOR THE CONSUMERS WANT IS USED,
SODA BOTTLES BEING BROUGHT IN TO
THE, TO THE FACILITIES AND
STAYING THERE AND HOW THAT
COLLECTION GOES, WE HAVE
TRANSPORTATION. HOW DO YOU PICK
THESE UP? HOW DO YOU GET THEM
OUT? SAY, IT'S EASY TO DO. WE DO
IT WITH TRUCKS. WELL OF COURSE,
BUT THAT REQUIRES TWICE AS MANY
TRIPS. YOU GOT ONE DELIVERING
ONE NOT. OH, WELL, THEY CAN MIX
THEM WELL THEN YOU HAVE CLEAN,
SANITIZED FOOD WITH DIRTY AND
NON SANITARY PRODUCTS. AND SO
THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES.
WHY THIS IS HANDLING AND
WASHING. HANDLING AND WASHING
TAKES AS WE ALREADY SAID
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION
ADDITIONAL FUEL. IT ALSO TAKES
HOT WATER AND DETERGENTS AND
THEN YOU HAVE REFILL
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED EVEN TO GET THEM BACK
INTO THE INTO THE FACILITIES. SO
IT'S IS COSTLY. IT WILL HAVE
MORE TRANSPORTATION TRIPS. I
THINK THERE'S OTHER THINGS. WHAT
HAPPENS TO THE DEPOSIT. DO WE
PUT THE IS THERE NO LONGER A
DEPOSIT ON THESE. DO THE DEPOSIT
GO TO THE TO THE CONSUMERS. DO
THEY GO TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO
SPOKE THAT HAS A COMPANY THAT
WANTS TO DO THIS. THOSE ARE ALL
ISSUES THAT ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT
AND VERY COSTLY TO BUILD OUT
THIS THIRD SET OF
INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. GREG
HERNER, ON BEHALF OF THE CAN
MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, CMI'S
MEMBERS ARE THE MAKERS OF METAL
PACKAGING FOR THE FOOD, BEVERAGE
AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY.
ALUMINUM HAS THE HIGHEST
RECYCLING RATE AND HIGHEST VALUE
OF ANY OF THE BEVERAGE CONTAINER
MATERIALS. THE HIGH VALUE OF
USED BEVERAGE CANS CURRENTLY IN
THE 12 TO $1400 PER TON RANGE
SUPPORTS THE OVERALL RECYCLING
SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA,
SUBSTANTIALLY ALUMINUM IS ALSO
LIGHTWEIGHT AND STRONG, WHICH
REDUCES CARBON AND PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION,
ACCORDING TO THE CARBON TRUST,
CARBON FROM TRANSPORTATION FOR
THE LIFE CYCLE OF SINGLE USE
ALUMINUM IS ABOUT 1% OF THE
TOTAL. THAT'S COMPARED TO
TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS FOR
REUSABLE GLASS CONTAINERS, BEING
ABOUT FIVE TIMES HIGHER.
REUSABLE GLASS CONTAINERS MUST
USE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND
ENERGY WHEN MANUFACTURED TO
WITHSTAND THE CONSUMER STORAGE,
RETURN. TRANSPORTATION AND
WASHING PROCESS BEFORE THEY ARE
REUSED, JUST GO BUY A REUSABLE
RETURNABLE MILK JUG FROM THE
STORE 3 TO $5 DEPOSIT ON THOSE,
I BOUGHT ONE THE OTHER DAY. VERY
HEAVY. YOU'RE TALKING TO A
ALUMINUM CAN, WHICH IS LESS THAN
HALF AN OUNCE. THIS WEIGHT IS A
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO THE
ADDITIONAL CARBON AND
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
TRANSPORTATION. THE CARBON TRUST
ALSO DETERMINED THAT WITH HIGH
RECYCLING RATES AND LOWER
EMISSION POWER SOURCES, THAT THE
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE CARBON
FOOTPRINT FOR SINGLE USE
ALUMINUM AND PET IS EQUIVALENT
TO THE LOWEST CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF REUSABLE GLASS, AND AS THE
RETURN IN WASHING FACILITY
LOCATION IS FURTHER AWAY, THE
CARBON INTENSITY OF REUSABLE
GLASS INCREASES RAPIDLY. THE
CARBON FOOTPRINT OF THE ALUMINUM
BEVERAGE CAN HAS GONE DOWN MORE
THAN 40% SINCE THE 1990S, AND
IT'S SET TO GO DOWN FURTHER AS A
AS THE INDUSTRY SEEKS TO
INCREASE US RECYCLING RATES AND
LOWERS THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF
PROCESSING RECYCLED ALUMINUM,
93% OF RECYCLED ALUMINUM
BEVERAGE CANS RETURN AND COME
BACK AS AN ALUMINUM BEVERAGE
CANS IN AS LITTLE AS 60 DAYS AND
CANS NATIONWIDE CONTAIN OVER 73%
RECYCLED ALUMINUM. CMI
SUPPORTING REDEMPTION CENTERS
NATIONWIDE TO INCREASE RECYCLING
RATES AND FURTHER LOWER CARBON
EMISSIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS
BILL CREATES A MANDATORY SHIFT
TO HEAVIER AND TRANSPORTATION
EMISSION SENSITIVE GLASS
CONTAINERS. IT'S WELL
INTENTIONED, BUT SO IS
ELIMINATING SINGLE USE PLASTIC
BAGS. SO WE I SEE THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE ME TO FINISH UP HERE. SO WE
STRONGLY BASED ON THESE ISSUES
WITH THIS AND THE ONES THAT MY
COLLEAGUE HAS MENTIONED AND WITH
THE CURRENT CRV PROGRAM AND THE
ROBUST CURBSIDE RECYCLING
PROGRAM, WE NEED TO OPPOSE THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER PERSONS HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ROB SPIEGEL,
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION, MR. CHAIR CHRIS
MICHELI ON BEHALF OF NIAGARA
BOTTLING, WE SHARE THE CONCERNS
OF OUR ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN
BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KATIE DAVEY WITH
THE DAIRY INSTITUTE OF
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION, CURTIS
TRILINEATUS, ON BEHALF OF
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, IN OPPOSITION.
CHAIR MEMBERS LUIS SANCHEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY BEER
DISTRIBUTORS IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ABED FRANCO, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION.
BEAUTIFUL. WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. WOOD,
JUST BRIEFLY, THANK YOU FOR THE
BILL, MISS FRIEDMAN. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING SUPPORTING YOUR BILL
TODAY, BUT I, I, I SEE THE WHAT
LOOKS LIKE A POTENTIALLY
UNIVERSAL WINE BOTTLE, WINE
BOTTLES, ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL,
BEVERAGE, BEVERAGE BOTTLES AND
THINGS ARE JUST NOW COMING INTO
THE, INTO THE RECYCLING STREAM.
AND I WOULD JUST URGE, IF THE
BILL PASSES THAT, THAT THERE IS
SOME SORT OF A RUNWAY FOR WHY I
HAVE 425 WINERIES ALONE IN
SONOMA COUNTY, WHERE I LIVE. SO
WHILE 60 IS ADMIRABLE, THAT'S
JUST ONE COUNTY THAT I
REPRESENT. THERE'S A LOT TO GO
OUT THERE, AND THEY ALL HAVE
VERY DISTINCTIVE BOTTLES AND FOR
ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
AND SO, CRAFT BEER AS WELL, ALL
A LOT OF THEM, WHILE THEY WERE
TRANSITIONING TO A LOT TO
ALUMINUM, WE STILL SEE BOTTLES
AND THEY ARE DISTINCTIVE AND
IT'S PART OF THE BRAND. AND SO
JUST ASK THAT THERE BE, YOU
KNOW, AS, AS IF THIS MOVES
FORWARD, IF THERE'S
IMPLEMENTATION THAT WE START
HAVE A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND
SEE HOW YOU CAN DO THIS. YOU
KNOW. WELL I GET HALF AND HALF
IN A, IN A RETURNABLE BOTTLE
THAT GOES BACK TO THE GROCERY
STORE AND THERE'S THE DEPOSIT ON
THAT. THAT'S A LOT OF INCENTIVE
FOR ME TO RETURN IT, BECAUSE
IT'S SIGNIFICANT AND I BUY IT
BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT PRODUCT. SO
IT CAN IT CAN BE DONE. SO THANK
YOU AND I APOLOGIZE I FORGOT TO
SAY THAT WE HAVE AGREED IN
THEORY TO REMOVE WINE AND
SPIRITS, TO GIVE THEM A
DIFFERENT ONE WAY OR REMOVE THEM
FROM THE BILL BECAUSE THEY ARE
NEW TO THE BOTTLE BILL PROGRAM.
WHAT ABOUT BEER BOTTLES? BEER
HAS BEEN IN BOTTLE IN THE BOTTLE
BILL FOR QUITE A WHILE, SO WE'RE
INCLUDING BEER. INTERESTINGLY,
WHEN I WENT TO OREGON TO SEE
THEIR REUSABLE PROGRAM, IT'S, I
THINK, ONLY BEER AND WINE.
BECAUSE THE CRAFT BEER AND MAYBE
THERE'S OTHERS. BUT WHEN I WAS
THERE, I SAW THE CRAFT BEER
PLACES. LOVE THE IDEA OF PEOPLE
WALKING BACK IN WITH THE
BOTTLES, AND THEY GIVE THEM A
DISCOUNT TO FILL IT UP WITH
THEIR BEER IN THE PUBS. SO THEY
HAVE REALLY EMBRACED IT. THEY
USE THESE SORT OF CRAWLER SIZED
BOTTLES. SO AND THEN THEY PUT
THEIR OWN LABELS ON IT, SO YOU
CAN TELL. BUT THE PEOPLE THERE
HAVE REALLY SORT OF EMBRACED THE
IDEA THAT THEY'RE SUSTAINABLE AS
WELL. YEAH. THANKS ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY CORA, A SECOND BY
PELLERIN. MISS FRIEDMAN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? JUST, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO DISCUSS ALL OF THE
CONCERNS WITH THE OPPOSITION. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. I
UNDERSTAND THIS IS, YOU KNOW,
COMING ON TOP OF THE BOTTLE,
BILL, AND WE YOU KNOW, WE DO
FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT IT'S
TIME THAT WE START REUSING MORE
THINGS AND MAKING LESS NEW STUFF
BECAUSE DEALING WITH IT IS
CERTAINLY WASTEFUL AND NOT
OPTIMAL. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD
REQUEST AND I VOTE. THANK YOU
FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS, AS
YOU MENTIONED, BEER WAS INCLUDED
IN THE PREVIOUS BOTTLE BILL.
ALSO 10 BILLION SINGLE USES. AND
SO A MAJOR OPPORTUNITY, BUT
UNDERSTANDABLE WHY IT'S CAUSING
MAJOR CONCERN FOR FOLKS. SO I
TRUST CONVERSATIONS WILL
CONTINUE OF COURSE. AND THIS
BILL HAS A DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION. THÀNH. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU CALL THE
ROLL? MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
BRIAN I BRIAN I FLORA. FLORA NÓ
BAUER-KAHAN. FRIEDMAN I FRIEDMAN
I HOOVER. CHOLERA CHOLERA I
MURATSUCHI PATTERSON. NO.
PATTERSON. NO. PELLERIN.
PELLERIN I WICKS. WOOD. WOOD. I
BELIEVE THAT. BILL ON CALL.
THANK YOU. OKAY. YOU WANT TO DO
BAUER REAL FAST? I AM NOW GOING
TO PRESENT AB 2085, EDUARDO
GARCIA, COME IN REAL QUICK. OH,
SURE. THIS, I BELIEVE, IS HIS
FIFTH TIME PEEKING IN SIX. I'M
COUNTING. I'M COUNTING. OKAY,
IT'S ALL GOOD. THIS IS,
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
AB 3238, WHICH WOULD ACCELERATE
THE BUILD OUT OF ELECTRICAL
TRANSMISSION TO MEET
CALIFORNIA'S AMBITIOUS CLIMATE
GOALS. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ITS WORK. I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS WITH THE INTENT TO
STILL WORK ON REFINING SOME OF
THESE AMENDMENTS, SPECIFICALLY
AMENDMENT A, NUMBER THREE, AND
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT D, AS YOU
ALL KNOW, ACHIEVING THE STATE'S
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS WILL
REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO
PROVIDE RELIABLE RENEWABLE
ENERGY TO ELECTRIFY HOMES,
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND
TRANSPORTATION. WE WILL NEED
SOME BOLD CHANGES IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS WITHIN OUR
TRANSMISSION THÀNH PERMITTING,
THIS BILL, WILL MODIFY EXISTING
PROCESS TO ACCELERATE THAT
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT. FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING, OUR TEAM AT AND THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL HAVE,
STRIVED TO FOSTER AN OPEN,
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS TO ENSURE
THAT ALL VOICES ARE HEARD AND
CRAFTING THIS MEANINGFUL PIECE
OF LEGISLATION, WE'VE
COLLABORATED ON A NUMBER OF,
OCCASIONS. WE'VE HAD SOME
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, BUT ALSO,
ENSURED THAT WE IDENTIFY THE
CONCERNS, WITHIN THE DIFFERENT
COMMITTEES. THIS IS OUR THIRD
POLICY COMMITTEE, THE WILD PARKS
AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE, WATER
PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE
ACCEPTED SOME AMENDMENTS THAT
HELP ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED REGARDING THE
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT AND THE NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLANNING
AGREEMENTS, IN THIS COMMITTEE,
WE'RE LOOKING AT APPLYING,
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL
MODIFY THE CPUC PERMITTING
PROCESS AND LIMITING THE WIDTH
OF THE SEQUA EXEMPTION FOR RIGHT
OF WAY OF EXPANSION FOR EXISTING
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
UAE. WE TOOK ON SOME ISSUES
RELATED TO CEQA EXEMPTIONS FOR
WILDFIRE MITIGATION, AND
INCORPORATING A SUNSET INTO THE
BILL. SO, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY,
MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO, ADDRESS
THE OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS. AND
WE REMAIN COMMITTED, AS MY GOAL
IS TO, IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY
TO MOVE THIS BILL, TO CONTINUE
TO FOSTER A SERIES OF
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS IN ORDER TO
GET THIS RIGHT, WITH ME TODAY,
WE HAVE ERIC MARTIN, DIRECTOR OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AT
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, AND VÆ JOHN WHITE WITH
CERT, I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE
YOU, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, TO PLEASE ASK THE
QUESTIONS. ASK ME, ASK OUR
WITNESS EXPERTS, THE QUESTIONS
THAT, PERHAPS ARE RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION AND THE EFFORTS THAT
HAVE BEEN UNDERWAY TO TRY TO GET
THIS BILL RIGHT, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
GREAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE
TODAY AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
INTRODUCED ME. MY NAME IS ERICA
MARTIN. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, HERE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB 3238 AND
THE ESSENTIAL ROLE THAT IT WILL
PLAY IN THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION. WE'RE SO ENCOURAGED
BY THE GROWING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
AROUND THE STATE THAT IN ORDER
TO MEET THE STATE'S CLIMATE
POLICY GOALS, WE NEED TO BUILD A
LOT MORE RENEWABLE GENERATION
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION,
SUPPORTING ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE NEED TO
DO IT AT AN UNPRECEDENTED RATE
IN SCALE AND UNDERSCORING THAT,
CAISO JUST ISSUED ITS DRAFT
TRANSMISSION REPORT FOR 2024 ON
APRIL 1ST, IT'S BASED ON A
FORECAST OF 7000MW OF ADDITIONAL
GENERATION CAPACITY THAT NEEDS
TO BE ADDED EVERY YEAR FOR THE
NEXT TEN YEARS IN ORDER TO MEET
OUR GOALS, WHICH UNDERSCORES
WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW, THE
EXISTING PROCESS FOR APPROVAL,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF
ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS
DUPLICATIVE. IT'S COSTLY, IT'S
LENGTHY, AND WE SIMPLY DON'T
HAVE TIME TO PRESERVE THE STATUS
QUO AND TAKE 10 TO 15 YEARS TO
DEVELOP AN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
LINE. ANYMORE FOR, THE
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE BEFORE YOU
ALL, BEFORE THE STATE IS TO TAKE
A HARD LOOK AT THE STATE'S
POLICIES AND DECIDE WHERE WE CAN
MAKE SOME MEANINGFUL TIME
SAVINGS IN THAT PROCESS. AND WE
RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGE OF
WEIGHING THE DANGERS OF A
WARMING CLIMATE AND THE IMPACT
TO THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE NEED
TO CHANGE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY THAT THOSE ARE THAT'S
THOSE ARE TOUGH, TOUGH
QUESTIONS. AND IT WILL REQUIRE
THE RESOLVE TO DO THINGS
DIFFERENTLY. AB 3238 IS A
MEASURED PROPOSAL THAT AIMS TO
ADDRESS THE PLACES WHERE WE HAVE
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES
IN TIMING IN THE PERMIT PROCESS,
IT'S BECOME EVEN MORE REFINED,
EVEN MORE TARGETED AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LISTED, AS WE'VE
GONE THROUGH TWO OTHER POLICY
COMMITTEES AND FOCUSES
PREDOMINANTLY ON THE CPUC
PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS BECAUSE OF THEIR
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL
JURISDICTION, THERE IS ALSO A
TARGETED CEQA EXEMPTION FOR
INSTANCES WHERE A UTILITY NEEDS
TO WIDEN THEIR EXISTING RIGHT OF
WAY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
UPDATED INFRASTRUCTURE OR
CO-LOCATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
AND OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD HELP
TO STREAMLINE THE LOCATION OF
THE FACILITIES. IMPORTANTLY, AND
AS YOU SEE IN THE ANALYSIS THAT
IS AN EXEMPTION FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, RIGHT?
AND NOT AN EXEMPTION FOR THE
PROJECT ITSELF. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS JOHN WHITE WITH THE
CLEAN POWER CAMPAIGN. WE ARE
VERY CONCERNED THAT CALIFORNIA
IS SIMPLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO MEET OUR TARGETS IF WE DON'T
ACCELERATE TRANSMISSION
DEVELOPMENT IN A WAY THAT WE
HAVE NOT YET IMAGINED. THIS IS A
GOOD START, BUT NO ONE WANTS TO
GIVE UP THEIR DISCRETION, THEIR
AUTHORITY. EVERY AGENCY WANTS TO
PRESERVE THEIR AUTHORITY. EVERY
STAFF WANTS TO PRESERVE THEIR
AUTHORITY. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO
BE SUCCESSFUL, WE HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THIS DIFFERENTLY. OKAY
THERE IS NO TRANSMISSION
TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY
WITHOUT TRANSMISSION. AND THE
BENEFITS AND THE COST SAVINGS
HAVE TO BE BALANCED AGAINST BOTH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
THE TIME THAT WE LEGITIMATELY
SHOULD TAKE TO REVIEW. AND SO WE
THINK WE WE'VE GOT TO DO BETTER
THAN WE'RE DOING NOW. THIS BILL
IS A VERY MODEST STEP, BUT IT'S
A GOOD BEGINNING. AND WE'D ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY PERSONS HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
DYLAN ELLIOTT ON BEHALF OF
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS KIM
DELFINO, AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT
SOCIETY AND AUDUBON, ALL
ORGANIZATIONS, I WOULD NOTE,
WORK VERY, VERY HARD TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN ACCELERATE
CLEAN ENERGY AND TRANSMISSION
IN, WHILE WORKING AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL AT THE STATE AGENCY LEVEL
AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL, I'D SAY
THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN
ACCELERATE OUR CLEAN ENERGY
DEPLOYMENT BY MAKING SURE THAT
WE CITE THEM IN THE BEST PLACES
POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THAT WAY WE
CAN AVOID COST AND DELAY, LET ME
JUST START OFF BY THANKING THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS, AND THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT, FOR THE
AMENDMENTS AND THE WILLINGNESS
TO WORK WITH US ON THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. WE'VE
SHOWN UP NOW IN OUR THIRD
COMMITTEE, RAISING OUR CONCERNS
AND HAVE TO GIVE CREDIT THAT THE
BILL HAS IMPROVED AS IT'S MOVED
THROUGH THE PROCESS, HOWEVER, WE
ARE STILL OPPOSED, MAINLY
BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS
WITH RESPECT TO BOTH, THE BILL
CONTINUES TO CONTAIN A PROVISION
THAT WOULD WEAKEN THE CALIFORNIA
NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION
PLANNING ACT. THIS IS NOT AN
ISSUE THAT'S IN YOUR
JURISDICTION. IT JUST IS AN
ISSUE THAT CONTINUES TO BE A
PROBLEM FOR US, WE BELIEVE THE
NH█P ACT IS ONE OF OUR HALLMARK
LAWS. THIS WOULD WEAKEN THE
CONSERVATION STANDARD WITHIN THE
NCCP. THERE'S THAT. THE NEXT
THING IS, IS THAT WHILE THE CEQA
EXEMPTION FOR RIGHTS OF WAY ONTO
STATE LANDS SUCH AS STATE PARKS
IS IMPROVED WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS BY THE COMMITTEE, IT
STILL CREATES AN EXEMPTION. THAT
MAKES NO SENSE. WE THINK THAT
YOU SHOULD DO CEQA ANALYSIS ON
THE EXPANSION OF A RIGHT OF WAY,
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T AND YOU GO
AHEAD AND YOU PLAN A PROJECT AND
THEN YOU GET TO THE SEQUA PART
OF THE PROJECT AND YOU HAVEN'T
THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THOSE IMPACTS
MIGHT BE ON IMPORTANT RESOURCES,
YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING A HEAD
IN THE SAND APPROACH TO PLANNING
PROJECTS. AND FRANKLY, ENDS UP
DELAYING CREATING COST AND
DELAY, WE ALSO, CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIMITATION ON
THE REVIEW OF ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS BY A
RESOURCE AGENCY UNDER SEQUA. THE
AMENDMENTS DO MAKE SOME
IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IT'S STILL
CONFUSING WHY IT'S, YOU KNOW,
WHY ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT
RESOURCE AGENCIES HAVE TO
SOMEHOW HAVE CONSTRAINTS, BUT
YET, LIKE A, AIR DISTRICT
DOESN'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
DIFFERENCE. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE
THIS IS A SECTION THAT'S A
SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM,
AND THEN THERE IS STILL AN
ISSUE, WITH THE REASONABLE RANGE
OF ALTERNATIVES, IN TERMS OF
WHAT COULD BE REVIEWED, WE STILL
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE
THERE. KAISO ONLY REVIEWS
TRANSMISSION PROJECTS, AND WE
THINK THAT THE PUC SHOULD BE
ABLE TO LOOK AT NON WIRE
ALTERNATIVES WHEN THEY'RE
LOOKING AT A CEQA ANALYSIS FOR A
PROJECT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THOSE
TEND TO BE CHEAPER, AND SHOULD
BE AT LEAST REVIEWED, AND WE
DON'T THINK THAT THAT CREATES,
ADDITIONAL DELAY FRANKLY. SO
AGAIN, THE BILL IS A WORK IN
PROGRESS AND WE APPRECIATE ALL
OF THE SUPPORT GIVEN BY THE
AUTHOR AND THE IN MOVING IT
FORWARD. AND MAKING
IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER, AT THIS
TIME, IT STILL HAS SOME
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. LAST BUT NOT
LEAST, OUR BIGGEST CONCERN,
WHICH WAS THE IN-LIEU PERMITTING
THAT WAS ADDRESSED. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE,
SO WITH THAT RIGHT NOW, WE
RESPECTFULLY STILL URGE A NO
VOTE, BASED ON THE CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? CHAIR STEVEN FINN
FROM THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU,
WE'RE CURRENTLY IN OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AND
TO THE AUTHOR FOR, WORKING
THROUGH THINGS. AND WE'RE REALLY
HOPEFUL AND WORKING TOWARDS
GETTING A TO A NEUTRAL POSITION.
SO THANK YOU. HI. NATALIE BROWN
WITH THE PLANNING CONSERVATION
LEAGUE ALSO IN OPPOSITION. THE
BILL THANKS. HELLO. JACOB EVANS
WITH SIERRA OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ALEX LIMA WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND.
WE'RE IN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE SUPPORT GIVING THE
CPUC THE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE
SURE ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
IS ONLINE WHEN AND WHERE WE NEED
IT, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, INCLUDING
THE NH█P ACT. SO WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE.
WE'RE IN CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM AND HOPE WE CAN FIND A
SOLUTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? CONCERNS. MR. WOOD, I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR THE BILL AND, THE
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, THE WORK
WORKING TO MAKE THIS A BETTER, A
BETTER BILL, I MISTER, MISTER
WHITE STOLE MY STOLE MY LINE.
THAT ACTUALLY IT'S AN
INTERNATIONAL LINE THAT THERE
THERE IS NO TRANSMISSION WITHOUT
TRANSMISSION, I HEARD THAT WHEN
I WAS AT COP, THIS THIS LAST
YEAR, AND IT IS A CRITICAL PIECE
OF THE PUZZLE THAT NEEDS TO
NEEDS TO, NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO
MOVE FORWARD IN A MORE TIMELY
MANNER THAN IT IS NOW. I, I
DON'T I DON'T I LOOK AT THIS AS
A LOT OF THIS AS EFFICIENCIES
AND LESS THAN TO I DON'T LIKE
THE WORD STREAMLINING WHEN IT
COMES TO SEQUA. I PREFER
EFFICIENCY. AND WHAT I REALLY
WANT TO SEE IS OUR STATE
AGENCIES SHOW SOME URGENCY
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO
REACH OUR CLIMATE GOALS WITHOUT
URGENCY AND I DON'T SENSE THAT
HAPPENING WITH A LOT OF OUR
STATE AGENCIES, 7 TO 12 YEARS TO
PERMIT POTENTIALLY AND BUILD OUT
TRANSMISSION IS COMPLETELY VÆ.
OUTRAGEOUS AT THIS POINT,
CONSIDERING THE CHALLENGES THAT
WE FACE GOING FORWARD, I THINK
WE CAN DO THIS MORE EFFICIENTLY
AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE
OPPOSITION, BUT WE NEED OUR
STATE AGENCIES TO SHOW THE SAME
URGENCY THAT A LOT OF US FEEL
AROUND THIS ISSUE. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. WOOD. OTHER
QUESTIONS, MR. FRIEDMAN. SO, YOU
KNOW, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH WITH THE SPEED THAT
SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING
DEPLOYED. I TRIED TO DO WORK IN
THIS AREA LAST YEAR MYSELF AND
AS YOU KNOW, I ALSO HAVE A LOT
OF HEARTBURN OVER THE HARM THAT
COULD BE DONE IF WE DON'T HAVE
SAFEGUARDS. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT
GOING TO BE EVERYWHERE, BUT
YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE
WORRIED ABOUT THOSE FEW SPOTS
WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A REALLY
NEGATIVE IMPACT IN TIMES WHERE
IT COULD BE AVOIDED. BUT WE HAVE
A VEHICLE HERE AND WE HAVE AN
AUTHOR THAT I TRUST, THAT'S NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE WHEN THESE BILLS
COME UP, I THINK IT'S WORTH, YOU
KNOW, CONTINUING THE PROCESS. I
KNOW THAT THIS AUTHOR IS
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO TALK,
TO NARROW THE BILL, TO HOPEFULLY
NARROWING IT TO THOSE LOCATIONS
WHERE WE MIGHT REALLY HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT OR WHERE WE HAVE
ALTERNATIVES THAT SHOULD BE
LOOKED AT BECAUSE THEY'RE WORTH
EVALUATING. BUT I'M NOT WILLING
TO NOT SUPPORT THIS TODAY
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ON THE FLIP
SIDE, IF WE DON'T MOVE A WHOLE
LOT FASTER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL
EVERYTHING IS GOING TO SUFFER.
SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY. BUT I DO HOPE THAT THE
AUTHOR CONTINUES TO BE IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION. YOU HEARD A LOT OF
OPPOSE UNLESS, YOU KNOW, UNLESS
AMENDED. SO, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS
LIKE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE
MOVING TO A YOU'RE NEVER GOING
TO HAVE EVERYBODY, BUT YOU'RE
MOVING TO A PLACE WHERE YOU'RE
ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE MAJOR
CONCERNS. AND I KNOW THAT YOU'LL
KEEP WORKING. AND I I'M GOING TO
GIVE YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M
HAPPY TO GIVE YOU THE LATITUDE
TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PELLERIN. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD, IS IT DID I
HEAR THAT PUC DOES HAVE THE
CAPABILITY OF STREAMLINING
PROCESSES PROJECTS RIGHT NOW OR
IT'S NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH? YEAH,
THEY THEY COULD CHANGE THEIR OWN
PERMITTING RULES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES.
AND THEY HAVE THUS FAR NOT TAKEN
THAT UP, THERE'S AN OPEN
PROCEEDING WHERE THAT MANY OF
THESE REFORMS WERE PRESENTED TO
THEM. IT'S BEEN WITH THEM FOR
SIX MONTHS. WE'RE STILL WAITING
FOR A STAFF PROPOSAL FROM THEM.
MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A DECISION BY
THE END OF THE YEAR. MEANWHILE,
UTILITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
ARE DEVELOPING THE TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY
CAISO 45 LAST YEAR. 25 MORE
BEFORE THEM RIGHT NOW. AND WE
JUST WE JUST DON'T SEE THAT WE
HAVE THE TIME TO WAIT FOR THAT.
OKAY. AND IS IT TRUE THAT THIS,
BILL WOULD EXEMPT THESE PROJECTS
FROM THE COASTAL ACT THAT WE
DEALT WITH, IN THE CURRENT
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY
THE COMMITTEE, THAT THAT
PROVISION HAS BEEN STRUCK.
GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS?
MR. GARCIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH, JUST THANK YOU FOR,
THE AUDIENCE. THANK YOU FOR THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. I KNOW WE
HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
SPECIFICALLY THE 200 VERSUS
200FT. EXEMPTION RIGHT AWAY,
THEY WERE ADDRESSED. THERE'S
KIND OF A PRECEDENT THAT WAS
POINTED TO AS IT RELATES TO
SPONSORS OF THE BILL AND THE
WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE. THERE
WAS ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT GOING
FROM A SUNSET OF TEN YEARS
VERSUS FIVE. YOU KNOW, WE WERE
SHOOTING FOR TEN, RECOGNIZING
HOW LONG THESE PROJECTS TAKE TO
PROCESS AND ULTIMATELY BID
BUILD. SPEAKING TO THE COMMITTEE
STAFF, WE UNDERSTAND THE
RATIONALE BEHIND FIVE. MY HOPE
IS THAT, IN THREE YEARS OR FOUR
YEARS, WE ARE BEFORE YOU OR NOT,
WE I BUT ONE OF YOU WILL NEED TO
BE HERE, ADVOCATING FOR A
POTENTIAL EXTENSION. BUT
NONETHELESS, WE AGAIN ALIGN AND
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS,
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMITTEE'S
CONCERNS AND THE OPPOSITION,
I'LL SAY ONE, ONE LAST THING,
AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE
OPERATING UNDER THE NOTION AND
OF THE WEAKENED, TRY TO GET
EVERYONE'S, OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, EITHER NEUTRAL OR OR
SUPPORTING THE BILL. THAT'S HOW
WE'RE OPERATING IN THIS PROCESS.
I RECOGNIZE I'M NOT NAIVE. I'VE
BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH THAT THERE
WILL BE INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS,
ORGANIZATIONS THAT, BASED ON
THEIR PRINCIPLES, THEIR
IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS,
PHILOSOPHICAL MISSION, THEY
WON'T BE WITH US, BUT I JUST
WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT WE'RE
DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. THIS IS
THE THIRD POLICY COMMITTEE. IF
SOMEONE SAID WE HAD TO GO TO A
FOURTH, WE WOULD. AND TO TRY TO
HAVE MORE TIME TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES AND, AGAIN, I JUST
APPRECIATE, YOUR WORK ON THIS.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
EYEBALL. THANK YOU. CHECKING. DO
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REFER
TO A FOURTH COMMITTEE? OH, GOD.
YOU KNOW, NO, I WOULDN'T DO THAT
TO YOU. I, I WAS IN
CONVERSATIONS AT 11:00 LAST
NIGHT WITH MY TEAM ABOUT THIS
BILL. I WAS IN CONVERSATIONS AT
4:00 THIS MORNING WITH MY TEAM.
I WAS IN CONVERSATIONS JUST
BEFORE FLOOR SESSION, AND THE
REASON THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE
TAKING PLACE IS BECAUSE THEY
WERE TAKING PLACE FOR YOU.
BECAUSE THAT IS HOW HARD YOU
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE.
AND SO I HAVE SEEN AND FELT THAT
COMMITMENT, AND, AND DEEPLY
RESPECTED. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN
WE CALL THE ROLL MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN HI, BRIAN.
AYE, FLORA. HI, FLORA. I
BAUER-KAHAN FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HOOVER. KOLLER COLLURA I
MURATSUCHI PATTERSON. PATTERSON
I PELLERIN PELLERIN I WICKS
WICKS I WOULD WOOD I. THAT BILL
IS OUT. MISS FRIEDMAN FOR MISS
BAUER KHN. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF
FOR THIS WORK ON THE BILL. I'M
PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2085, A BILL
THAT CREATES AN EXEMPTION TO
LOCAL ZONING FOR REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CLINICS IN AREAS ALREADY
ZONED FOR HEALTH CARE AND RETAIL
USES. AB 2085 REQUIRES
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF CLINICS
THAT MEET ALL OF THE LOCALITY
STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE
ARBITRARY OF A OBSTRUCTIONS OF
LIFE SAVING CARE. UNFORTUNATELY,
WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH HAS
BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE, AND WE
SEE CLINICS THAT ARE DESPERATELY
NEEDED TO SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES AND
TO PROVIDE CARE. BEING DENIED
APPROVALS IN CALIFORNIA, EVEN
WHEN THEY MEET ALL LOCAL ZONING
RULES. I DO WANT TO HAVE ONE
AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO ADD LARA
FRIEDMAN AS A COAUTHOR TO THIS
BILL. AND WITH ME TODAY IS MOLLY
ROBSON WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
CALIFORNIA ACTION. THANK YOU.
THANKS GOOD AFTERNOON, ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. IT'S A PLEASURE TO
SPEND EARTH DAY WITH YOU, I'M
MOLLY ROBISON WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA, WHERE WE REPRESENT
THE SEVEN AFFILIATES IN
CALIFORNIA WHO OPERATE OVER 100
HEALTH CENTERS ACROSS THE STATE.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS SPONSORING
AB 2085 TO STREAMLINE THE
PERMITTING PROCESS FOR
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS, TO
ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NOT
UNJUSTIFIED DELAYS IN
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE OR
HEALTH CENTER CONSTRUCTION.
SINCE THE DOBBS DECISION, TWO
YEARS AGO, WE HAVE SEEN THE
ATTACKS ON ABORTION,
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE AND BIRTH CONTROL
INTENSIFY, TRANSFORMING HEALTH
CARE INTO POLITICAL
BATTLEGROUNDS, WHICH HAS
DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES. EVEN IN
CALIFORNIA FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
CITY OF FONTANA IN THE CITY OF
FONTANA, THE LOCAL PLANNED
PARENTHOOD RECEIVED VERBAL
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
CLINIC ON A VACANT SITE ZONED
FOR HEALTH CARE. AFTER FOLLOWING
STANDARD PROCEDURE, ABIDING BY
ALL LOCAL GUIDELINES, AND
ADJUSTING AS NEEDED TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PLANNING
STANDARDS. IT WAS A SURPRISE
WHEN, AFTER A YEAR OF PLANNING,
THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED A
MORATORIUM ON ANY NEW BUILDINGS
IN THE AREA WHERE THE
PROSPECTIVE HEALTH CENTER WAS.
THE COUNCIL THEN PLACED ANOTHER
MORATORIUM, THIS TIME FOR TEN
MONTHS, WHICH HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO ONLY IMPACT THE
PROSPECTIVE HEALTH CENTER IN A
POST DOBBS ERA WHEN MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE HAVE LOST ACCESS TO
ABORTION AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE IN THEIR HOME
STATES, IT'S CRITICAL THAT
ACCESS IN CALIFORNIA IS NOT
IMPEDED. THE FONTANA HEALTH
CENTER, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED AN ESTIMATED 2000
MEDICAL VISITS PER MONTH AND
POSITIVELY IMPACTED CARE IN THE
COMMUNITY. AB 2085 WILL ENSURE
THAT ALL LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
CANNOT UNJUSTLY INTERFERE WITH
THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE AND
DELIVERS ON CALIFORNIA'S
COMMITMENT AS A REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM STATE. AND I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THIS MEASURE? HI SEAMUS
GEARTY, ON BEHALF OF LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM FOR ALL, A CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS LEGISLATION. STRONG SUPPORT
. HELLO, DANIEL SANCHEZ,
CALIFORNIA ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA PRIMARY CARE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
FANTASTIC. ANYBODY IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION? WE'LL
NOW TURN IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MISS PELLERIN, GREAT,
BILL. AND I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR AS WELL. THANKS
MR. CARRA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I MEANT TO DO THAT IN LOCAL GOV,
AND I'M HAPPY TO DO IT NOW. I'D
LOVE TO BE ALSO JOINED AS A
COAUTHOR. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY.
MR. WOOD, I AM HAPPY TO ADD YOU
AS A COAUTHOR, ALONG WITH MYSELF
. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THERE'S NO REGISTERED OPPOSITION
FOR THIS BILL. WE WOULD REQUEST
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, WITH
THAT, CAN I ALSO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR, MADAM SECRETARY, CAN
WE CALL THE ROLL MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN A
BRIAN. AYE. FLORA. FLORA NOT
VOTING. BAUER-KAHAN FRIEDMAN A
FRIEDMAN. AYE. HOOVER CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. AYE. MURATSUCHI
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. NO.
PELLERIN. PELLER AYE. WICKS.
AYE. WICKS. I WOULD. WOOD. AYE
PERFECT. THAT BILL IS OUT, MR.
WOOD, FOR MR. LOWENTHAL FOR AB
2212. I'VE BEEN TOLD TO GO FAST,
SO IT'S FAST AS AS FAST AS THE
WIND WILL BLOW. OKAY. I'LL BE
BRIEF, TRY TO ANYWAY. AT LEAST
THE WORDS ARE BIG, MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
ON BEHALF OF, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL, AB 2212, WITH ACTS,
WHICH ENACTS THE OFFSHORE WIND
WORKFORCE SAFETY TRAINING
FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTS OUR STATE WITH A
MULTI-BENEFIT OPPORTUNITY TO
HELP US MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
SUPPORT AND IMPROVE OUR
COMMUNITIES, CREATE NEW JOBS,
AND STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH.
HOWEVER, IN WORKFORCE NEEDS OF
THE INDUSTRY ARE ESTIMATED TO
GENERATE THOUSANDS OF GOOD
PAYING LONG TERME JOBS IN OUR
STATE. HOWEVER, TO MEET THESE
NEEDS, WE MUST ENSURE THAT
WORKERS RECEIVE THE PROPER
SAFETY TRAINING AND
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE
INDUSTRY TO WORK ON OFFSHORE
WIND PROJECTS AND ON THE
TURBINES THEMSELVES, WHICH WE
CAN DRAW ON. THE EXAMPLE OF THE
PORT OF NEW BEDFORD ON THE EAST
COAST, WHICH I VISITED LAST
YEAR, HOME TO OUR COUNTRY'S
FIRST OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES, AS
WELL AS THE NATIONAL OFFSHORE
WIND INSTITUTE, THE INSTITUTE
PROVIDES WORKFORCE SAFETY
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS FOR
THE OFFSHORE WIND WORKERS SO
THEY CAN CARRY OUT THEIR WORK IN
THE UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT AND
CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND ON THE
TURBINES. THE WORKFORCE SAFETY
TRAINING FACILITIES ESTABLISHED
UNDER THIS ACT WILL PROVIDE
INVALUABLE TRAINING TO THE
OFFSHORE WIND INDUSTRY'S
WORKFORCE IN ORDER TO ENSURE
THEY CAN PERFORM THEIR JOB
SAFELY. I'M PLEASED TO BE JOINED
BY DAN JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA. THE BILL SPONSOR WAS
HERE TO TESTIFY ON IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2212. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS DAN
JACOBSON WITH ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD FOR
STEPPING IN, FIRST OF ALL, NOT
ONLY HAPPY EARTH DAY, HAPPY
PASSOVER AS WELL, LET ME JUST
SAY THAT THIS BILL IS VERY
COMMON SENSE. WHAT WE WANT TO DO
IS MAKE SURE THAT THE WORKERS
HAVE THE TRAINING THAT THEY
NEED. THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC
TRAININGS THAT YOU NEED WHEN YOU
DO THIS KIND OF OFFSHORE WIND,
I'LL JUST MENTION ONE THAT COMES
FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
OFFSHORE WIND, WHICH IS HOW DO
YOU EVACUATE A HELICOPTER IF
IT'S GONE DOWN IN THE OCEAN AND
FLIPPED UPSIDE DOWN? WELL, I
WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D KNOW HOW TO
DO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE
HERE WOULD KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE WORKERS HAVE THE TRAINING TO
DO THAT. THE OFFSHORE WIND THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS OVER 20
MILES OFF THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA. THESE HELICOPTER
RIDES ARE NOT GOING TO BE
UNUSUAL TO HAVE HAPPEN. WE NEVER
WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. BUT IF
ANYTHING SHOULD HAPPEN, WE NEED
PEOPLE TO BE TRAINED TO BE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH IT. IT'S THE SAME
IF YOU'RE INSIDE THE NACELLE AND
SOMETHING HAPPENS. IT'S A VERY,
VERY SMALL EXIT TO GET OUT OF
THERE. WE NEED A WORKFORCE
THAT'S TRAINED TO BE ABLE TO DO
IT. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL AND WOULD ENCOURAGE AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU SIR, ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THIS MEASURE? SEEING NONE
ANY OPPOSITION THAT JUST SHOWED
UP. SEEING NONE, RETURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. NO QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS. MR. WOOD WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE THE NOZZLE? IS THE
POWER GENERATING UNIT, IN CASE
YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THANK YOU.
I JUST HAD A FEELING I COULDN'T
FIT THROUGH IT, WELL, YOU MIGHT,
BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
GET OUT SAFELY. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. I
COULD NOT BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF
THE OFFSHORE WIND EFFORTS THAT
WE'RE PUTTING INTO PLACE HERE
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. AND THE
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ARE AND
TRAINING ARE INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU FOR MAKING
THAT POINT SO CLEAR FOR US. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED, MR.
CORA. SECOND BY MR. PELLERIN.
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL? MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
UTILITIES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE.
BRIAN. HI BRIAN. I FLORA A FLORA
I BAUER-KAHAN FRIEDMAN. HOOVER.
Þ FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. COLLURA
COLLURA I MURATSUCHI PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
WICKS, I WICKS I WOULD, I WOULD
I WE'RE GOING TO DO ADD ONS
WHILE WE WAIT FOR AL MURATSUCHI
TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM.
AL MURATSUCHI IS IT A GOOD BILL?
WE JUST WANTED. SO WHAT'S THAT
ON. IT'S PROBABLY. JUST KIDDING.
I DON'T HAVE THAT'S NOT OUT.
AB 3192 MERIT SUSHI MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. HOOVER WICKS. WICKS.
AYE. THAT HAS SIX VOTES. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOOVER. YOU KNOW WHAT?
LET'S PAUSE. THAT WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE THIS OUT? AB 2329.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APOLOGIZE
FOR THE DELAY. SECOND. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2329, WHICH WOULD
CREATE THE CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE
DECARBONIZATION AUTHORITY, A
NONPROFIT THAT WOULD ADMINISTER
THE CLIMATE EQUITY TRUST FUND TO
PROMOTE ELECTRICITY
AFFORDABILITY AND INCENTIVIZE
ELECTRIFICATION. WE ALL KNOW
THAT, WE CANNOT MEET OUR
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS WITHOUT
ELECTRIFYING OUR ECONOMY, AND WE
CANNOT ELECTRIFY OUR ECONOMY
WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF
ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY. THAT
IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLIMATE
EQUITY TRUST FUND. TO TESTIFY TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS POLICY,
WE HAVE MATT FRIEDMAN, THE STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK. AND IF HE MAKES IT
HERE, SCOTT, WATCH, REPRESENTING
THE COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MATT
FRIEDMAN. I'M A STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK,
WE'RE HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
AB 2329, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A
CLIMATE EQUITY TRUST FUND TO
ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE OF RAPIDLY
RISING ELECTRICITY RATES THAT
THREATEN THE AFFORDABILITY OF
BASIC SERVICE AND UNDERMINE THE
ECONOMICS OF BENEFICIAL BUILDING
AND TRANSPORTATION
ELECTRIFICATION. AS EVERYONE
HERE KNOWS, RETAIL, ELECTRICITY
PRICES IN CALIFORNIA HAVE BEEN
SKYROCKETING IN RECENT YEARS, IN
PARTICULAR, THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITY RATES HAVE REACHED THE
BREAKING POINT. PG AND E RATES
HAVE DOUBLED SINCE 2019, AND
THEY'RE UP OVER 50% SINCE 2022.
FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,
RATES ARE UP 70% SINCE 2019, AND
FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC,
MORE THAN A THIRD SINCE 2019.
AND FOR THESE UTILITIES,
UNFORTUNATELY, RATES ARE LIKELY
TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE IN THE
COMING YEARS AT A PACE THAT FAR
EXCEEDS INFLATION AND WILL
CREATE MASSIVE AFFORDABILITY
CHALLENGES FOR CUSTOMERS. SO
THAT'S WHERE AB 2329 COMES IN.
IT WOULD ESTABLISH A NEW DURABLE
STRUCTURE FOR CHANNELING FUNDING
FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES TO OFFSET
A VARIETY OF COSTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE COLLECTED IN
ELECTRICITY RATES. AND THIS
APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH
JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE
MADE TO THE LEGISLATURE BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, AND THE
INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR. IN
A 2021 REPORT. AND IT'S ALSO
TRACKS WITH MANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED BY AGENCIES LIKE THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOGNIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF FINDING NEW
APPROACHES AND NEW FUNDING
SOURCES FOR COVERING AN ARRAY OF
COSTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY DRIVING
UP ELECTRICITY RATES. THE TRUST
WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY THE
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE
DECARBONIZATION AUTHORITY, A NEW
NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, AND ALL OF THE
DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE TRUST
WOULD BE REGULATED BY THE ENERGY
COMMISSION AND BY THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE MONEY
COULD BE USED TO PROVIDE DIRECT
CREDITS ON RATEPAYER BILLS, TO
SUPPORT REBATES FOR CUSTOMER
SERVICES, OR TO REIMBURSE COSTS
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
COLLECTED IN RATES, WE THINK
THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL POLICY
VEHICLE. IT'S ABOUT ESTABLISHING
A LONG TERME, DURABLE COMMITMENT
TO LOOKING AT WAYS TO FIND
EXTERNAL SOURCES OF MONEY, TO
BRING DOWN RATES. AND WE WOULD
ASK FOR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANY PERSONS IN THIS HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. MICHELLE
CANALE IS THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT CHRISTINA
MAHABIR, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT
KEELEY MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN,
GILBERT, ROBINSON AND SMITH ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA SUPPORT CHRIS ROSA ON
BEHALF OF NRDC IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANY REGISTERED
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE,
ANYBODY IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO VOICE THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE? WE
WILL NOW TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.
MADAM SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND? CAN WE CALL,
MR. MURATSUCHI, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
A VOTE. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN.
HI, BRIAN. I, FLORA, I FLORA, I
BAUER-KAHAN FRIEDMAN, I
FRIEDMAN, I HOOVER. HOOVER I
CHOLERA, I CHOLERA I MURATSUCHI
I MURATSUCHI I PATTERSON
PATTERSON I PELLERIN I PELLERIN
I WICKS WICKS I WOOD, WOOD. I
GOT TEN VOTES. IT'S OUT OF TEN.
THAT'S OUT. THANK YOU. THAT IS
ALL THE BILLS WE WILL NOW GO
THROUGH FOR. YEP. FOR MISSING
MEMBERS AB 3192 MURATSUCHI
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
ABSENT MEMBERS. HOOVER. 3192.
31. 92. 31. 92. HOOVER. NO I WAS
WONDERING WHO WAS 6 TO 2. AB
2085 BAUER-KAHAN MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS.
HOOVER HOOVER. AYE. MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI. AYE. THAT HAS SIX
EIGHT VOTES OUT. AB 2212.
LOWENTHAL MOTION IS DUE PASSED.
UTILITIES AND ENERGY CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS.
HOOVER NO. HOOVER. NO.
MURATSUCHI. MURATSUCHI AYE. THAT
BILL HAS NINE VOTES. AB 2320.
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. MURATSUCHI
AYE. MURATSUCHI. AYE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON AYE. WICKS. WICKS I
WOULD, WOULD I HAS TEN VOTES.
IT'S OUT. AB 2537. MOTION IS DUE
. PASS. UTILITIES AND ENERGY.
CHAIR VOTING. AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. AYE.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI. AYE.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON AN AYE.
WICKS. WICKS. AYE. THAT HAS TEN
VOTES. IT'S OUT. AB 2560. MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS.
HOOVER. AYE. HOOVER. AYE. KALRA.
WICKS. WICKS. AYE SEVEN VOTES SO
. AB 2661. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN.
AYE. HOOVER A. HOOVER. AYE.
WICKS. WICKS. AYE TEN VOTES. AB
2762. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ABSENT. MEMBERS. HOOVER. NO.
HOOVER. NO MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI. AYE. WICKS WICKS.
AYE. 7 TO 3. SOUTH AB 2776.
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. AYE. MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI. AYE. PATTERSON AYE.
PATTERSON. AYE. WICKS. WICKS.
AYE WOULD. 2776. WOULD. AYE HAS
TEN VOTES. AB 2851. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. HOOVER. 20 NÓ. HOOVER.
NO. PATTERSON NO. PATTERSON. NO.
7 TO 2. IT'S OUT. OH, AND. WICKS
2851. BONTA. WICKS AYE. YES. MR.
ONE TIME AB 2870. MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. PATTERSON NØ PATTERSON.
NO. WICKS. WICKS AYE. THAT HAS
SEVEN VOTES. AB 39 TÍNH. MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. AYE. MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI. AYE. PATTERSON AYE.
PATTERSON. AYE. WICKS. WICKS.
AYE WOOD. WOOD. AYE. THAT HAS
TEN VOTES. AB 3155. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS AS
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. HOOVER NÓ. HOOVER. NØ.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI. AYE
WICKS. WICKS. AYE. THAT IS 34567
VOTES. SO. AB 3227. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN. AYE. HOOVER. HOOVER.
AYE WICKS. WICKS. AYE. THAT HAS
11 VOTES. AB 3238. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. HOOVER.
HOOVER. AYE MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI. AYE. THAT HAS TEN
VOTES. THANK YOU. CHANGE, PLEASE
. YES. CAN AND I'LL CONSENT.
CALENDAR. ABSENT MEMBERS.
PATTERSON. FOR THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. PATTERSON. AYE. WICKS
WICKS. AYE. THAT HAS 11 VOTES
AND A VOTE CHANGE. YES. I'M
SORRY. 31. FILE ITEM TWO 20, 85
2085. AYE. TO NOT VOTING. HOOVER
CHANGING VOTE AB 2085. AYE TO
NOT VOTING. AND THAT HAS SEVEN
VOTES. AND THAT'S. AND THIS
CONCLUDES TODAY'S NATURAL
RESOURCE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU