Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Good afternoon. Welcome to Assembly Natural Resources Committee. We have 11 measures on the agenda today. The bills are sign in order. So if you're an author that hasn't signed in, please see the Sergeants. We want to start off, I believe we have a quorum. So let's start off. Do we have a quorum? Oh, we had a quorum. Come on, Hoover, what are you doing to me? Oh, thank you. Please. Okay, Secretary, please take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a quorum. So first item on the agenda is Assembly Member Alvarez, AB 1449. Just want to remind all authors that you get two witnesses in support, up to two witnesses in support, two minutes each. And if there's opposition, up to two witnesses in opposition, two minutes each, too. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1449 to you today. I want to start, first of all, by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working with us on this bill. And I accept the Committee's amendments. And thank you again, Chairwoman Rivas. Appreciate your work and diligence on this. AB 1449 is a common sense bill that provides CEQA exemption for projects that are affordable, 100% affordable housing projects that meet rigorous labor standards and specified environmental requirements.

My feelings are this, that if we grant CEQA exemptions to billionaires that are building stadiums, we should also make it easy for those who want to build affordable housing to build affordable housing in our communities that desperately need them. You probably have heard the numbers, but just a reminder, California is ranked 49th for housing units per capita and is 2.5 million units short of the demand, which is projected to jump up to 3.5 million short by the year 2025. That's only less than two years away.

The same report, the McKinsey Report, also argues that our housing shortage causes an annual economic loss of $140 billion. Despite its good intention, CEQA has played a contributing role in inhibiting developers ability to build more housing. Consider a report by the Business Roundtable that found that in 2020, nearly 50%, half of all housing production that year was challenged under CEQA.

The lengthy and expensive CEQA process and the ease in which someone can abuse it needlessly increases the cost, primarily driven by the length of housing projects, the length it takes to build housing projects, often resulting in projects becoming cost prohibitive and maybe not even actually built. Recognizing the housing crisis we are in and its real life, death or death consequences, AB 1449 seeks to remove barriers to building affordable housing while requiring robust environmental and labor standards.

If we grant CEQA, I look forward to continuing to work with those of you have concerns with the bill. But again, I want to thank the Committee for their opportunity to discuss, and again, accepting the amendments that are before us today. With that being said, I'll introduce the two witnesses, Marina Wiant from Housing Consortium and Mark Stivers from the California Housing Partnerships. Marina.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium. We're an affordable housing advocacy organization focused on the production preservation of low and moderate income housing, and we're proud to co sponsor AB 1449. As I'm sure you're all aware, California currently has a gap of 1.2 million homes affordable to lower income Californians, and on any given night, roughly 160,000 people in California experience homelessness.

Despite this well established need, affordable and supportive housing projects face local opposition across the state, making these projects more difficult to site, more time consuming to approve, and more costly to build. Current law provides numerous protections for proposed affordable housing and supportive housing developments seeking local approval, including many by-right and CEQA exemptions for certain projects. Unfortunately, the existing tools at times have too many limitations and prevent access to CEQA streamlining for many 100% affordable housing developments, particularly those in rural and high resource communities.

Additionally, for those developments that may already be exempt either a use by right or from a CEQA exemption, actions such as funding and planning decisions taken by the local agencies to fund these projects are still being challenged under CEQA and cause undue delays to the projects. AB 1449 would exempt several actions taken by local agencies in furtherance of 100% affordable housing from CEQA, while ensuring new developments are on climate friendly, infill sites and meet certain environmental protections.

Unlike other streamlining tools, AB 1449 does not override local zoning decisions or development approvals. The local government still retains any relevant land use discretion. By its nature and as a result of state and local funding priorities, 100% affordable housing is higher density and built on location efficient sites close to services and amenities its residents need. The funding programs also prioritize housing in high resource communities, which have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes to low income families, particularly those with children.

AB 1449 balances the need of California's most pressing issues in housing and homelessness with the environmental concerns to ensure location efficient, affordable homes are built quickly for those most in need. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I urge your support today.

And I am Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. And I just want to reiterate the point that 100% affordable housing is environmentally friendly. We build it to keep cost down. We have to put more units on an acre of land. It is higher density than average development in the community.

To be competitive for state funding sources, you have to be near a number of site amenities, as we call them, things like schools, parks, health facilities, grocery stores, and we are building them to very high sustainability standards. There are a number of programs that make sure we're doing solar and energy efficiency and battery storage way beyond even what the strict state building codes require. So affordable housing has been very environmentally friendly, and we are just looking for the ability to sort of move those projects forward in a more cost effective manner so we can address our state's housing crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we're ready for additional witnesses in support. Please just state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California, proud co-sponsor of this legislation. Thank the author for his work on it.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR in support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.

Next, we're ready for witnesses in opposition, if there are any.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Jennifer Svec on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We're here in opposed unless amended position. First, I'd like to note that we very much support and appreciate the author's goal of the bill, and in fact, our opposition is related to wanting to expand the CEQA exemption contained in the bill, as well as concerns with regard to a deed restriction that's contained within the measure that doesn't match the TCAC program, which the program is paired with.

The 55 year deed restriction within the bill currently contains an opportunity to last in perpetuity. TCAC currently has a 55 year limitation, and we'd like to see those two programs match. With respect to the CEQA exemption, our concern is that we're seeing a constant increase in pressure on the medium price of housing.

We saw a small dip for a seasonal low of $780,000 last year, but we've rised back up to $820,000 for the median price of housing in the state of California, even with higher interest rates than what we've previously had. Our concern is we're continuing to not build enough entry level market rate housing for our first time homeowners, and we're continuing to see that stock dwindle and diminish. We'd like to see the bill actually expanded to include homeownership opportunities for families of low and moderate income from market rate housing as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, additional witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earthjustice with apologies to the Committee and the author for our late letter of today. We are opposed, have concerns that the analysis really reflected around some of the provisions needed to ensure there is environmental protections, as we've seen in previous measures along these lines. But certainly understand the issue that the author is trying to address and look forward to working with him and the sponsors.

Madam Chair and Members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in an opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Zbur.

Sorry, I can't get to the thing. So thank you first of all for bringing this bill. I do think that it's important. I was wondering if you could address the issues that were raised.

The mic is on? I just want to make sure.

I think so. Is that better? Yeah. I wonder if you could address the issues. I didn't understand the issues that the Building Trades raised related to ERISA and if you could respond to those and just the issues they raised in their letter.

Yeah, I'm in the receipt of the letter as well. I think my understanding of the letter, as you have as well before you, it's related to language that was used in AB 2011, which was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last year. I am not aware of whether there is a lawsuit that's been filed against that and where that stands, so I can't answer that question.

But I assume you'll work with the Building Trades to try to address their concerns.

We're going to try to address the concerns of the opposition. That's always the goal, yeah.

Great. And did you look at potentially expanding it to for purchase housing for low and moderate income?

I am a big fan of that idea. We're going to have to look at what that does to the bill, but certainly if we can do that, that would be the hope. Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Assembly Member Pellerin.

So just to be clear, you are taking the Committee amendments?

Committee amendments are taken today, yes.

Okay.

And there's some opposition that we're looking into to see if it's something else we can address going forward.

The only minor thing that I spoke to you about is that it requires that the documentation be filed with the County Clerk. And that's not always the County Clerk. So maybe changing that at some point to appropriate county department would be great.

Thank you. I recall that and we have that in our notes here. Thank you.

Thanks for continuing to work with the opposition to resolve their concerns.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? I see none. Thank you for working with us and your sponsors. I really appreciate it, how you sat down with us and really worked this out. So I'm happy to support the bill today. So would you like to close?

No. Thank you. Again, thank you to the staff for the diligence on this. And like I said, the more opportunities we can bring homeownership and opportunities for others who are working in construction, we'll try to make sure that gets addressed going forward. Appreciate your aye vote today. Thank you.

Great. We have a motion by Assembly Member Wood, second by Assembly Member Addis. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill has five votes. We'll leave it on call.

Thank you very much.

Next, AB 1465 by Assembly Member Wicks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, for the record, I understand I'm wearing purple, but I'm a Warriors fan, and go Warriors tonight, so don't get it twisted, okay?

I thought it was Lakers. Do you want this bill out? No, I'm kidding.

And with that, respectfully ask for an aye. Okay, Madam Chair Members, AB 1465 takes a slightly different approach than a bill I authored last year in an attempt to tackle a problem that plagues California neighborhoods with oil refineries in their backyard, which I have in my district. At too many refineries in recent years, there have been serious declines in compliance with air quality requirements, coupled with increases in flaring events that release toxic air contaminants into our communities.

Refinery flaring can result in a shelter in place notification, school closures, and a surge of visits to healthcare facilities for medical care. In the Bay Area, refineries remain among the largest source of air pollutants, specifically in my district. Increased flaring events have led to incidents that have negatively affected the health of my constituents and impacted schools in the surrounding areas.

AB 1465 triples the civil penalty ceiling for air quality violations that occur at refineries if the discharge contains one or more toxic air contaminants defined under the state law as a pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As this Committee analysis outlines, fines are designed to act as a credible deterrent, and most air quality civil penalties across the state are, in fact, working as intended.

But refineries are large, and their air quality violations are potentially far more dangerous than other facilities. The evidence shows that our current fine structure, in the words of the analysis, quote, likely provides no real incentive to prevent similar future occurrences. Refineries must be held more accountable when they pollute the air. The consequences for air quality violations must be severe enough to deter a discharge before it occurs so refineries simply don't treat fines for causing community disruption as an acceptable cost of doing business. With me here to testify in support is Alan Abbs on behalf of our sponsor, the Bay Area Quality Management District, And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alan Abbs representing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and sponsor of AB 1465. People that live in refinery communities experience some of the highest cumulative health burdens in California, even in circumstances where refineries are operating within all of their permit conditions. Unfortunately, refineries don't always operate within their permit conditions, and that's why 1465 provides an appropriate remedy.

In 2021, the AQMD issued over 240 notices of violation to refineries for our three active refineries in the Bay Area, and for 2022, that total exceeded 300 notices of violation in the region. We also had over 30 flaring incidents over each of the last two years, which is actually a decrease from 2019, where we had 72 flaring incidents.

That's every five days where you might be told to stay inside, your child might not be able to go to school, or you might have to seek medical care because of excess emissions of sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants.

Other violations we've seen recently include a failure to accurately report emissions over a 10 year period and a Thanksgiving night incident last fall that emitted over 10 tons of heavy metal laden dust over a two day event. For refineries, the existing penalty ceilings obviously don't work. If they did, we wouldn't see the continued increases in violations. The penalty ceiling for strict liability for these events was $10,000 in the year 2000.

That was SB 1865 from Senator Perata and has only recently risen with inflation beginning in 2018. Imagine being a refinery community resident and knowing that violations result in slightly over a $10,000 fine. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership in authoring AB 1465, which takes a small step towards better aligning penalties for refineries violating air quality permits and endangering public health.

While these modest amounts don't fully recognize the impacts in these communities, we hope it discourages thinking about these events as a minor cost of doing business. Thank you for considering this bill. I'm here to answer any questions, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1465? Go ahead.

Hi, we haven't gotten our letter in. I apologize, but Voices for Progress in support of this important bill.

Thank you.

Will Brieger for 350 Sacramento in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1465?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. We have an opposed unless amended position on this bill, mainly for two reasons. One, first, the singling out of refineries sets a new precedent in code by singling out by facility type rather than air quality violation. We believe that the current structure of the code applying equally to all title five facilities is sufficient.

And there's no justification or rationale for singling out refineries or any other title five facility for different and unequal treatment for identical incidences. Second, the bill triples civil penalties without a justification, rationale, or event that would constitute the violation. So we recommend two amendments outlined in our letter to the Committee. One is to maintain the existing structure and enforcement for penalties to apply to all title five facilities.

And the second is to require that if penalties are going to be tripled, that the discharge results in significant increase in hospitalizations, residential displacement, shelter in place, evacuation, or destruction of property, as the author mentioned in her statement. For these reasons, we're opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Name and organization. Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none.

Do we have a motion? I don't know.

I made the motion.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Would you like to close?

Is the motion to support the Warriors or is it to...

Definitely not.

Support the bill? Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

That bill has four votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ramos presenting AB 389.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I am presenting AB 389, a bill that would grant the Native American Heritage Commission the ability to enter into closed session when discussing sensitive records. Additionally, this bill would ask the coroner in the state to have a policy when dealing with inadvertent discovery of Native American remains. The Heritage Commission, created in 1976, was established as the primary government agency responsible for identifying and cataloging Native American cultural resources.

I have also served on this Commission as its Chair and in the body since 2007 to 2018. While the responsibilities have changed and shifted, today, the Commission provides protections to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction and serves as a major component on repatriation of Native American remains, remains that have not been repatriated even in this year of 2023. Museums, UCs, in a current audit of the Cal State system, has identified over 500,000 remains still in their possession.

This bill will start the work that would allow the Native American Heritage Commission the ability to address these sensitive issues in closed session. This bill would allow for the Commission to enter into closed session during a consultation by the Commission on genealogical records or cultural affiliation of tribal members and tribal areas in the state of California. With me to testify, but had to get on a plane, was Chairman Bo Mazzetti, co sponsor of this bill. Also, Chairman Robert Smith of the Pala Tribal Government, who are also co sponsors of this bill. But with me to testify in person is one of their representatives.

Thank you very much. You got two minutes, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dorian Almaraz on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, proud sponsors of AB 389. Our Chairman, Bo Mazzetti, was instrumental in the establishment of the Commission back in 1976. Since the Commission's inception, protecting discussions involving sensitive cultural topics has been an issue of concern. This bill finally provides those protections. For those reasons, we respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Name an organization to AB 389.

Members of the Committee. Andrew Govenar, Governmental Advocates, on the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. In support.

Thank you.

Chairman, Members of the Committee. Frank Molina on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 389? Seeing none. Any tweeners to AB 389? And you will have two minutes, sir.

Good afternoon and thank you. My name is Steve Bodmer, and I serve as General Counsel for the Pechanga Band of Indians in Southern California. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, there were no flights and Chairman Mark Macarro was unable to attend this meeting today. Out of respect to the author, the Pechanga Tribal Council has taken a neutral position on AB 389 at this time, but the tribe has very serious concerns with the bill in its current form. We engaged the author and other staff last year to raise the issues when a similar measure was undertaken in a trailer bill without tribal consultation.

As written, the bill undermines tribal sovereignty by enabling the state to make significant decisions about treatment and management of our ancestral remains and the tribal cultural resources behind closed doors. Specifically, the state would be allowed to make changes to the State Contact List, which is a specific list entities consider by the state of California to be Native American tribes for sacred site protection and ancestral repatriation. This has serious implications for tribal governmental efforts to protect and repatriate ancestral remains.

AB 389 proposes a significant departure from standard state government public meeting requirements for transparency under applicable sunshine laws. Under the bill, tribal government would be denied access to information about agency decision making. This bill would allow Native American Heritage Commission to make decisions about groups the state recognizes as tribes for purposes of cultural resource protection behind closed doors and without transparency. Finally, the bill may not even be necessary at this moment in time.

At a recent all tribes meeting, representatives of the NAHC, the state agency that makes decisions on the contact list, reported they would soon begin tribal consultation about the contact list. That process could play out to understand all of the issues of the contact list and management confidentiality. The bill will impact every tribe's sovereignty in California. Thus, it's Pechanga's sincere hope that the author will work with us to address these concerns. Thank you for allowing us this time.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Wood.

Yes, thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward, and thank you to the witnesses. I'm just curious, why do this in closed session? Just help me to understand. That's really the question.

So those that know local government and have come from local government, county Board of Supervisors, community college, we go into closed session under sensitive materials, litigation, all those different things. When dealing with tribal aspects, it's sensitive. But yet there hasn't been a law that would allow for that sensitivity of the tribal aspect to be discussed in closed session. Everything is done out in front.

When there needs to be some capabilities to talk about some of these components in closed session, that then can be reported out after these meetings come forward. So the sensitivity of tribal, the state Legislature is barely starting to understand the sensitivity of cultural with repatriation and the inadvertent discovery of remains. That's the whole component.

And it even goes deeper that the audits that were done by the UCs on the UCs from the state identified the Heritage Commission to be able to come up with this MLD list that then would speed up the process of the repatriation of those remains in the archives of non-tribal members.

I'm sorry, through the Chair. What is an MLD list?

Most likely descendant. So, Chairman Wood, when a project is happening somewhere, maybe in your area or here in Sacramento, and there's inadvertent discovery of remains, the coroner is called out to identify those remains either as a Jane Doe or a John Doe. And if they're determined to be Native American remains, then the Native American Heritage Commission is notified that then notifies the most likely descendant to be able to be in contact and start to work through a proper reburial.

Okay, thank you.

So in this area, MLD would be Miwok, Nisenan, Patwin people.

So MLD is more about the fact that it's a tribal member, potentially...

The affiliation of the tribe.

The affiliation of the tribe but not necessarily the actual identity of the person. Okay, okay, I understand. Okay, thank you. Obviously you have a tweener here. I hope that you will be working together to resolve your differences.

Well, those know me. I mean, we work hard on all of the issues that we have. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's an issue that's been floating around in Indian Country for several years. Even while I was Chairman, that were there. The individual speaking alluded to some discussion of it last year that several tribes came on board and supported moving forward in this direction.

We do look forward to addressing any concerns that are out there, and certainly with the support of tribal communities shows that there is support for this moving forward. So we will continue to work and we will continue to fine tune this bill.

Thank you. Any other questions? Assembly Member Pellerin, and then I have Muratsuchi.

Yeah, so I'll be voting aye to move the bill today, but I hope you'll be working with the tweener to resolve the concerns. So thank you.

Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much. It sounds like a me too, but we obviously have a lot of respect for you, Assembly Member Ramos, and your leadership on these issues. But I'm hearing that there are some parties that felt like they weren't adequately consulted. And so I'm sure, I ask that you continue your efforts to make sure that you bring in and listen to all stakeholders on these important issues. Thank you.

Okay. Assembly Members Zbur.

Just a me too. And appreciate your willingness to work with Pechanga to address their concerns. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you. It really is, and I just don't want to leave the impression that there hasn't been any discussion because there has been. End of last session, there was continuing to be dialogue with an array of over 20 different tribes. So there has been discussion going on on the issue.

We are at the point to where now we have a bill that's moving forward to be able to make sure that we're listening to those voices that are willing to work with us, and we'll continue to work with those that have concerns. In my closing remarks, it really has been too long, and in many cases, over 50 years for remains to be outside of Indian Country and being held by non-Indian people, basically locked up, locked up in cabinets and boxes.

It's time that we work together for the betterment of all California Indian people to ensure that these remains get back to California's first people. And we should answer the call of our ancestors for a proper reburial to get them off those shelves and get them back into the ground. I ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion from Assembly Member Addis. Second by Assembly Member Muratsuchi. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Governmental Organization Committee. [Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for Members that are absent.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll move to Assemblymember Hart. We'll start with AB 631. Great. Assemblymember, you have a motion and a second. So this is AB 631.

Good afternoon, Chair Rivas and members. I'm pleased to present AB 631 to the committee today. AB 631 ensures California has 21st century enforcement tools to protect communities from oil operators that violate the law, endanger public health, and threaten the environment. Specifically, this bill empowers the California Geologic Energy Management Division. Also known as Cal GEM to seek injunctive relief from a superior court when urgent compliance is needed to protect public health and the environment.

AB 631 also allows civil enforcement cases to be referred to partner agencies and modernizes civil and criminal penalties. Consistent with other state agency authority, Cal GEM currently lacks some of the basic statutory enforcement authorities that most environmental regulatory agencies rely upon, like the California Air Resources Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In one 2022 example, dozens of wells operated by one company were found to be leaking toxic levels of methane gas.

When Cal GEM ordered the operator to fix these dangerous wells, the company failed to comply and Cal GEM did not have the authority needed to seek injunctive relief to gain compliance. This inaction threatened public health and could have been prevented if Cal GEM had the authority other state agencies currently have to force compliance. AB 631 also authorizes Cal GEM to refer civil enforcement cases to a city attorney, dstrict attorney, or the attorney general. Referring cases will increase the effectiveness of enforcement and ensure coordination among state and local agencies.

Recovered penalties will be used to offset partner agency prosecution costs and to plug and abandon the thousands of orphan wells across the State of California. Finally, this bill modernizes criminal and civil penalties consistent with other state agencies in order to ensure appropriate compliance and effective deterrence. Criminal penalties have not been updated in 35 years, and the taxpayer resources expended to prosecute an operator far exceed the total penalties that Cal GEM can collect.

Additionally, current law does not allow a Superior Court to assess civil penalties on an operator. These obstacles can result in less effective prosecutions, duplicative cases, and wasted taxpayer resources. In conclusion, AB 631 is an important step to ensure the state has necessary enforcement authority to hold violators accountable and protect communities from environmental and public health hazards posed by oil companies.

I look forward to working with the opposition should this bill move to the judiciary committee and speaking in behalf of the bill in support of the bill, with me today is Fatima on behalf of the California Environmental Voters, and Kalya on behalf of the Center on Race Poverty in the Environment.

Thank you to the author for your leadership, Chair, fellow witness, and committee members. I'm Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters here today in support of AB 631. I am raising a family in South Los Angeles, which is one of the densest concentrations of active and idle oil wells in all of California.

I see firsthand the statistic that we have some of the highest asthma and cancer rates, as well as lowered life expectancies, not just in the state but in the entire country for decades, we have seen oil companies profit while our community members continue to fight for their lives. It's not by accident that the areas most impacted by the lack of corporate accountability are the lowest income and communities of color.

While industry continues to go unchecked and rake in billions in profits, communities like mine suffer all over the state. It's time to center our health. effective enforcement of violations near schools, houses, places of worship and other sensitive receptors is extremely important to prevent public health effects. Spills, leaks, air pollution, contaminated water sources are some of the public health problems posed by oil and gas operations. Cal GEM's current authority does not always match the health risk of a potential violation.

And what's more, enforcement is not always applied or complied with. Of 66 enforcement orders between 2018 and 2020 that Cal GEM issued, only 11 have been complied with, with the rest remaining outstanding in 2020. While Cal GEM issued almost 200k in civil penalties, it collected $0. Given the billions in profit that oil companies are making, this lack of accountability for public health violations is unacceptable.

Additionally, the looming issue of 37,000 idle, not in production oil wells means that enforcement will be critical as this infrastructure continues to age and the risks get higher. The intent is that increases in penalties showcased in AB 631 will motivate oil companies to comply with the law and regulations and avoid being penalized and prevent further public health disasters.

AB 631 brings Cal GEM enforcement authority into the 21st century and will protect communities from oil companies that violate the law in Asia Public health. AB 631 Ensures Cal GEM has the necessary authority to hold oil companies accountable for actions that harm communities. Let's be clear that this bill is not about taking and will not take oil jobs away. It is about not letting the oil industry get away with skirting the responsibility for keeping their record profits while public and community health suffers.

In closing, we urge your aye vote on AB 631. Thank you.

Good morning chair and Members. My name is Kayla Karimi, here representing the Center on Race Poverty and the Environment. CRPE is committed to environmental justice and uplifting underrepresented communities in the San Joaquin Valley. I would like to thank Assembly Member Greg Hart for introducing AB 631, which gives Cal GEM the tools necessary to adequately enforce health and safety regulations, a task at which the agency has been failing for its entire history.

At CRPE, we work closely with local communities to advocate for their needs and public health. Our communities are low income communities of color with neighborhoods often in close proximity to oil and gas wells, and they depend on Cal GEM to protect them. Many of our communities suffer from effects of living near oil and gas wells, including asthma, chronic headaches, cancer, and more. However strong our regulations may be or become, if they fail to protect communities when they are, they fail to protect communities when they are unenforced.

As a result, human health suffers. Cal GEM must be able to protect our communities from leaks and other harms from both active wells and the over 37,000 idle wells, and their ability to safeguard the health of these communities is only as strong as their ability to enforce regulations. Unfortunately, Cal GEM has been unable to enforce oil and well leak remediation in our communities, including near schools, houses, and churches. AB 631 provides enforcement tools to Cal GEM, such as injunctive relief, coordinated civil enforcement, and increased fines.

These enforcement mechanisms will allow Cal GEM to hold oil well operators accountable and better keep communities safe, especially as the tens of thousands of idle wells continue to age and the risk of toxic leaks gets higher. As such, our organization supports AB 631 to ensure Cal GEM can enforce crucial oil-well regulations and protect our communities. I urge you to vote yes on AB 631. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we're ready for additional witnesses and support.

Hi, Evan Minton with Voices for Progress. We want to go on record saying that we officially support this bill. Thank you.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the City of Goleta, in support.

Will Brigger, on behalf of Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in support. And thank you, Mr. Hart.

Darryl Little, on behalf of NRDC in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair and members, Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. While we appreciate the authors extended out to work with us, we believe that AB 631 singles out owners and operators of oil wells and production facilities for extreme civil and criminal penalties. Really without providing a rational basis for imposing such outsized penalties increases.

Worse, the bill would raise suspector of strict liability for massive fines and criminal liability for violations of even the most insignificant portions of law, without any requirement to show actual harm or any culpable intent by the violator in some cases. Madam Chair, the proposed criminal and civil penalties are far in excess of those prescribed under existing California law for similar violations. The bill contains penalty fines, including imprisonment, that go far beyond what is currently in statute for similar penalty provisions.

For those reasons, we strongly oppose the bill.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in opposition? I see none. Any questions or comments from committee members? Assemblymember Wood.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Hart, for bringing the bill forward. A question for the opposition according to the information I have, in 2022 there were 66 enforcement orders by Cal GEM and only 11 have been complied with. Also there have been penalties that have been charged and never collected. I don't think Cal GEM has been able to collect a single dollar. So I kind of think we're here because of some of that.

Well, I wouldn't characterize this industry choosing not to do that.

And how do you explain when there are enforcement orders and penalties that this industry chooses to not do that?

Well, I would beg to differ, 66 enforcement orders,11 complied with. Explain that to me.

You have bad actors, you have irresponsible oil operators in the State of California. I think that's a picture of those operators, not of the overall industry in of and we've had discussions with Cal GEM on making improvements in this area.

But the length that this bill goes is way mean our comprehension.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when industries don't police the bad actors, when people know try to find a way to get people to in compliance and that's what happens.

Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Muratsuchi?

Mr. Hart, I love your bill. It's one of those bills that I kicking myself thinking. I wish I had thought of that, but I would be honored if you'd add me as a co author. Gladly.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Addis.

I will echo Assembly Member Muratsuchi announced to be added as well and move the bill if it hasn't or. I think I already moved it. I can't remember I moved it. Yeah.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Flora.

Thank you, Chair. I do find this bill interesting, to be quite honest with you. We talk a lot that we're actually going to hold people accountable, but we're picking and choosing a particular industry to do that with. And in some of the language it talks about stuff that's not even in their control, whether it's a weather event that does something with a well or a vandalism, they are going to be held liable for that and criminally liable.

We don't hold anybody criminally liable for very few things anymore. And to go after an industry, and this is something that we talk a lot about in this committee on a lot of different subjects, the cost of living. And when we start adding fines and penalties to this industry, my constituents, I am a Central Valley Legislator. We do not have electric vehicles that's going to run up and down our state anytime soon. We rely on fuel, we rely on this energy.

And to continue to quite frankly, demonize an industry that I do think is potentially not moving as fast as some of us want to. I think that's kind of your point. But to demonize them in a way that just sets them up, that they're this villain constantly. I'm starting to take a little bit of pause with that. We can't grow crops without them. We can't farm without them. We can't get our farm labor workers to the field without these people.

So instead of just constantly playing whack a mole with them, when are we going to have a conversation, a true conversation about what can we mean? We talked about cap and trade. We've done all of these programs, incredibly successful programs, to clean up the air quality that we care about in the central Valley, that our constituents breathe. But that budget got gutted this year. In the budget. That program got absolutely decimated. The single greatest program carp has ever put together. Where's that responsibility?

These men and women that work in these industries are doing everything that they can. And yes, every industry has bad actors, and it's a shame that we paint this industry because of a few bad actors. We paint in broad strokes because there's not a lot of other places in state government and bills that I've seen that we'd be willing to do that. But we do it all the time with the petroleum industry.

And I applaud the opposition in a lot of ways on just desperately trying to continue to provide a cheap resource for my community, a resource that we do not have an alternative right now. We do not. If we could flip a switch tomorrow, my community would cease to exist.

Any other questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yeah, I just want to thank Assemblymember Wood for my close and just want to urge respectfully an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

The Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for the absent authors.

Thank you.

Next. Also, Assemblymember Hart. AB 1548. Great. You have a motion and a second.

Thank you. Chair Rivas and members, I want to thank your staff for their work on this bill. I'll be accepting the committee amendments laid out in the analysis. AB 1548 expands Cal recycle solid and organic waste grant programs to help local communities purchase equipment to increase recycling and expand edible food recovery operations. The measure provides financial assistance to local governments for the purchase of basic infrastructure equipment to improve recycling operations.

The bill will also codify existing efforts to provide funding for reuse and food waste recovery programs that help divert items from landfills. AB 1548 will support local governments to improve recycling programs and get us one step closer to achieving California's ambitious recycling goals. Speaking in support of AB 1548, with me today is John Kennedy on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC representing 40 rural counties. We're pleased today to sponsor this bill, and we appreciate the committee amendments to refine and improve the bill. Under state law, local governments are charged with implementing the state solid waste diversion and recycling laws. This bill is borne out of on the ground experiences that our locals have had in their solid waste management programs.

It's seeking to bridge resource gaps that help increase solid and organic waste recycling, especially in some of the smallest counties out there, Trinity County in particular, and to model future programs off of programs like Yolo County has implemented to adopt a reuse program. So I will be brief, happy to answer any questions that may come up, but urge your support today.

Thank you. Next, additional witnesses in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Hello. Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink Waste, in support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of a few clients, City of Goleta, Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force, and Western Placer Waste Management Authority, all in strong support.

Are there witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none.

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. Thank you. Next, the AB 953 by Assemblymember Connolly.

Thank you Chair and members. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their stellar work and input on this bill. The committee suggested amendments approve upon the bill and I glad accept them. I also want to thank Assemblymember Greg Hart who has graciously joint-authored this bill. So Greg has now had three bills in a row after the last two.

AB 953 requires the Ocean Protection Council, or OPC, to create a statewide voluntary vessel speed reduction and a sustainable shipping program for the California coast. The primary objectives of this program are to reduce air pollution, the risk of fatal vessel strikes on whales, and harmful underwater acoustic impacts. This bill would codify and build upon the existing local vessel speed reduction programs. With me to testify in support of this bill and the co-sponsor of this measure, I have Alan Abs, the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Alan.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abs. I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, one of three co-sponsors of AB 953, along with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. AB 953 would establish a process to expand existing voluntary vessel speed reduction programs for ocean-going cargo ships along the entire California coast.

I'd really like to thank the committee staff for their excellent analysis of the bill, as Assemblymember Connolly mentioned, because when you read it, you can understand why the Ocean Protection Council identified voluntary vessel speed reduction programs as a desired program to develop in their 20202025 strategic plan. This bill would task the OPC to work with many stakeholders to look at existing voluntary VSR programs and then fill in the gaps to cover the rest of the state.

The Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies program was created in 2014 by the Santa Barbara County APCD, then expanded to coastal portions of Ventura County and then to portions of the Bay Area, and has resulted in increased slow-speed transits from 30% of ships when it first started to over 60% of ships in the most recent year.

These existing voluntary programs reduce air pollution in coastal communities, reduce underwater noise, and reduce threats of ship strikes to several species of whales, some of which are listed as endangered species. Our existing programs have been embraced by many international shipping companies who routinely tout their participation and as the analysis notes, expanding this voluntary program to other parts of the coast and recognizing participation of shipping companies by creating a sustainable shipping program would increase marine mammal and air quality benefits.

And as I might have mentioned before, this program is voluntary. AB 953 is supported by coastal air districts, the Marine Sanctuary Foundation Ocean and mammal protection groups and other environmental groups and has no listed opposition. I'd like to thank Assemblymembers Connolly and Hart for their leadership on this issue, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support?

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of the Sierra Club, California, in support.

Thank you. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Paula Forbis, air pollution control officer for the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, in strong support today. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, we have a support if amended, and just thank the committee and the author for the amendments that were agreed upon to the state, and we look forward to continued conversations on the remaining issues. Thank you.

Chair and Members, not technically in support, but Jerry Desmond, with recreational boaters of California, appreciate the clarification we will see in the amendments that are consistent, we believe, with what we've been discussing with the author and the committee, and that is that the program will be furtherance and expansion of the existing programs in a way that is still specific to those vessels that weigh over 300 tons off the coast. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? See none. Any questions or comments from committee members? Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Thank you. Mr. Connolly, this is the second bill that I wish I had thought about before to introduce myself. I represent San Pedro, which is right next to the port of Los Angeles, and I know that the air pollution is one of their big concerns, and I'm impressed that you have the Pacific Merchants Shipping Association support if amended.

My question is, I remember when we had the supply chain backlog at the port of LA and Long Beach, and there was this thick belt of pollution just hanging over the air for everyone to see near the port communities. My understanding is that that was because the ships were idling off the ports. I was wondering if this would help. It looks like this program was already being implemented at a port of LA and Long Beach, but I was wondering if it would make a difference.

Yes, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, thanks for asking. So there is an existing voluntary vessel speed reduction program for the port of LA and Long Beach. It's slightly different from the program that's run by the three existing air districts. It's primarily targeted towards air quality considerations and extends a little farther out than the VSR programs in the other air districts.

And in my understanding of that program, it's like ours in that it's trying to get at the pollution from the transit to the port, and not necessarily what happens once they get to the port or once they get into a position where they're waiting to birth and load or unload. And so, unfortunately, that was a problem that happened during the pandemic with the supply chain. Hopefully, we won't experience problems like that, but this bill doesn't target that specifically.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly. Like with Mr. Hart's bill, I would be honored to be added as a co-author of the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Addis.

Yeah, I just want to appreciate Assemblymember and appreciate your witness. And an especially important bill for our district. We have 200 miles of coastline, we have had whale strikes. Clearly the air quality issue. I see San Luis Bispo APCD is on here as well. So I want to say thank you and would love to be added as a co-author if you're taking co-authors.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, yeah, we have a motion, so I'll take that as a second. We have a motion from Assemblymember Mathis. Second from Assemblymember Pellerin. Before Muratsuchi asks me to change the author. He's jealous of two of your bills. No. That's great. Thank you for bringing these important measures to our committee. Happy to support. Would you like to close?

Yes. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for the absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Is Assemblymember Santiago here? Assemblymember Santiago? He was in here. I just don't know. Okay. Is Assemblymember Reyes here? Sorry, I can't see that far in the back. Since the authors in the room. I'm going to go ahead and present AB 1318.

So, I'm here presenting AB 1318. I believe I just have to ask for an aye.

Yeah, I'll second it.

Vote. Okay.

Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to Local Government Committee.

I don't know if there's any support or opposition. Do you want to just.

We'll do this properly. Yes, we got ahead of ourselves. All right. Anybody in support of AB 1318? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 1318? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Anybody from the committee? We've got a first and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you. The motion is due pass to Local Government Committee. [Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for absent members.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, can we do any add ons?

I'm okay with that. Madam Secretary, just to start from the top and do the add ons for now.

Okay.

All right. The Chair is going to present AB 1290. Ready when you are.

Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. I would like to thank my committee staff, especially Elizabeth, for her work on this bill. I have taken amendments to exempt medical products, products, and packaging intended for animals and added an enforcement mechanism to the bill. I will go ahead and turn it over to my witnesses in support.

Thank you very much. 2 minutes, please.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And thank you, Chair Rivas, for your leadership on AB 1290. Our organization works to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. We are deeply concerned about the toxicity of the materials and additives banned by 1290 and are proud bill co-sponsors. I want to focus on three aspects of the bill today.

No plastic creates more harmful exposures for workers, communities, consumers, and the planet than the life cycle of polyvinyl chloride. PVC production uses numerous highly toxic chemicals including vinyl chloride which are linked to breast cancer and other health harms. The East Palestine, Ohio train derailment and spill demonstrates the danger of transporting these chemicals and it will be years before we know the extent of this environmental and health disaster. Finally, disposing of PVC and landfills can release vinyl chloride and other toxic chemicals into the environment.

We should reduce PVC use wherever possible. AB 1290 also bans per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, from all packaging. PFAS is linked to numerous health concerns including cancer, hormone disruption, kidney and liver damage, and developmental harm. California has already banned PFAs in numerous product categories and AB 1290 will continue to reduce exposures in our state. Finally, oxo-degradable additives that are added to plastics result in them fragmenting into microplastic.

Banning them, as the EU did in 2021, will reduce releases of microplastics into our air, water, and food. A recent review concluded that microplastics may be hazardous to human digestive, reproductive, and respiratory systems. You will hear from opposition that we should leave plastics to last year's bill, SB 54, which won't be fully implemented until 2032 and which didn't focus on health issues. AB 1290 bans some very toxic substances and the approximately 32,000 women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer every year and the 4600 women who will die of breast cancer every year.

Can't wait another year. Can't wait for that. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Mark Aprea I'm here on behalf of Republic Services. First, we want to thank Assemblymember Rivas for introducing this important measure. As stated in the analysis, the United States Plastic Pact, a group of over 100 industry members and stakeholders, has identified a list of problematic and unnecessary plastic packaging materials and additives. These problematic plastics are either hazardous to human health or make plastic packaging hard to recycle.

In recent years, the state has moved to eliminate PFAS from multiple product categories, including clothing, textiles, paper-based food packaging, firefighting foam, and children's products, because of health concerns associated with these toxic forever chemicals. Republic Services has long supported such efforts to keep PFAs out of the solid waste stream, and we do so again with our support for AB 1290.

Now, some of the opposition to AB 1290 state that the Legislature should allow SB 54 to be fully implemented before imposing any new requirements on plastic packaging. That's a decade from now. Mr. Chair and members, AB 1290 does not run counter to nor undermine SB 54. Republic services supported the first iteration of that measure going back four years ago. We were intimately involved in the development of SB 54 throughout those four years, and we are not aware of any commitment, promise or illusion to not enact future legislation impacting single-use plastic packaging. If there was, I'm sure Assemblymember Rivas would be aware of that. AB 1290 phases out a subset of materials that are the most toxic or pose the greatest challenges to recycling. Let's keep this toxic material out of the waste stream. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Name and organization, please.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nika Lapis with California Against Waste, a proud co-sponsor and strong support.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink Waste, California Compost Coalition, and Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition, all in support. Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of few clients, Solid Waste Association North America Legislative Task Force, National Stewardship Action Council, California Product Stewardship Council, and Stop Waste, all in strong support.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of CALPIRG, in support.

Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC and a proud co-sponsor, in support.

Hello, Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action, also a co-sponsor in support. And I've also been asked to express the support of the banned single-use plastics urban ecology project, Indivisible, Alta Pasadena, Five Gyres, Surf Rider, and the Grove Collaborative. Thank you.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Unfortunately, we are in opposition to AB 1290. The enactment of SB 54 last year, along with SB 343 in 2021, has resulted in arguably the most comprehensive and rigorous single-use packaging and plastics recycling and waste reduction requirements enacted domestically or internationally.

New mandates are going to require that producers of all covered packaging materials for sale, distribution or importation into the state must be recyclable or compostable and for plastic packaging be recycled not less than 30% by 2028 and ratchets up to 65% by 2032. 54 also includes a source reduction requirement for plastics materials, as well as requiring producers to pay over $500 million per year for 10 years to Fund a variety of different environmental projects and programs.

The fee structure in SB 54 is ecomodulated, meaning fees will be lower for materials that are easier to be recycled or composted, thereby incentivizing producers to make changes in their packaging choices. I mentioned SB 343 in 2021 sets standards for labeling products or packaging as recyclable and includes requirements and criteria that those materials be designed to ensure recyclability and not include components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent the recyclability of those products or packaging. There's also a PFAS reference in SB 343.

The bottom line for us is that given the law that was only passed last year, signed into law last June, and the development of implementing regulations has only just begun at Cal Recycle, creating new mandates as proposed in AB 1290 is, in our view, unnecessary. We believe that process should be played out at Cal Recycle, and for those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Adam Regle, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition, the California Chamber of Commerce was at the table last year and the years before, working with all stakeholders to develop, as my colleague has said, arguably the most comprehensive circular economy bill in the nation. By Senator Allen SB 54. In fact, it was with the chair's leadership and the hard work of this committee's consultant that a compromise was reached when many believed it was near impossible.

We are therefore disappointed that to see AB 1290 banning materials covered under that law before rulemaking has even begun at Cal Recycle, and before businesses have had a chance to comply. In our view, the very foundation of SB 54 was that the Legislature would not pick winners and losers, but instead set up one of the most aggressive circular economy frameworks in the country, whereby businesses meet the new recycling and source reduction mandates or be forced out of the market.

AB 1290 casts doubt on SB 504's ability to work even before it has a chance to start, by predetermining a mere eight months after its passage, which materials will succeed and here which will not. Proponents in the committee analysis state this packaging is unnecessary. Yet the bill exempts entire segments of the economy from the ban, thereby proving this packaging is clearly needed for some simply because a few large companies in the world deem it unnecessary, which again predates SB 54 and SB 343.

It is not reflective of the entire marketplace, including small and medium businesses and food systems that rely upon it. In fact, banning this packaging, rather than allowing companies to meet SB 54 mandates, can have unintended consequences, such as increase in food waste and spoilage. For example, the major applications of PVDC include the packaging of poultry, meats, cheeses, teas, and coffees, just to name a few. And it's because of those properties, food shelf life is extended.

Banning packaging for some, while exempting it for others, is neither an effective nor equitable policy to reduce waste. It undermines, in our view, the foundation of the good faith agreements made last year to the detriment of California businesses working to comply, including many businesses that deliver food to our tables. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Name and organization, please.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Trent Smith, on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which is the manufacturers of over the counter drugs and dietary supplements, which are packaged the same as prescription drugs. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Adam Ackerman on behalf of Better Earth, opposed unless revised. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association. We're respectfully opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Margie Lie, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Dan Chia for the Personal Care Products Council, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Duncan Mcfetridge, on behalf of Dart Container Corporation, respectfully opposed.

Lauren Aguilar with Ameripen and the Flexible Packaging Association. Also in opposition.

Natalie Boust, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable. Respectfully opposed.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of Consumer Brands Association, American Beverage Association, opposed.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee members. Any questions from the committee, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I have traditionally supported these type of measures. I was just curious. I don't know if you can respond. When I heard the representative talking about prescription drugs and how that packaging is needed. I assume for safety considerations. I want to see if you can address that.

Yeah, we have exempted them. That was one of the amendments that I took.

Okay. That's.

I thought you were talking about the one that. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. No, we did not exempt the one that he just brought up in opposition. I thought you were talking about just medical in general. We're still in conversations with that industry.

Okay. Obviously, in support of. I've supported so many bills banning toxic and nonrecyclable plastics. I guess not banning, but supporting SB 54 last year. I know you worked hard on that, but I would imagine there are some that are easier to ban or phase out than others if there aren't important replacements to be able to have safe products that we all rely on. And so I trust that you will address those concerns.

Yes, definitely.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions from the committee members? Seeing none, Madam Chair would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due past two. Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The Bill has seven votes we will leave it open.

Thank you.

Assemblywoman Reyes, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My bill, AB 1000, creates guardrails so that local governments can approve warehouse projects without harming local residents. This bill is a product of months of research and feedback from stakeholders, state agencies and community members. Every piece of the bill has a basis and evidence, from the size of the warehouse to the specific mitigation measures listed.

I am proud to have labor unions, environmental and environmental justice organizations, healthcare providers, and community advocates, along with clean transportation and clean energy businesses, in support of the bill. The bill would allow a local government to approve a warehouse over 100,000 is within 1000 ft to be sighted up to 750 ft away from the project, away from a sensitive receptor if the project adopts mitigation measures related to zero-emission vehicles' energy infrastructure and adopts operating requirements on equipment and vehicle idling.

The 1000 foot buffer zone is based on recommendations from the California Air Resources Board, CARB, and the California Attorney General's Office. CARB conducted a study on the emissions reduction benefits communities would receive based on distance away from trucks and pollutions. The conclusion was that 1000ft provided an 80% reduction in diesel particulate matter exposure to sensitive receptors.

The mitigation measures in the bill are a combination of measures that the Attorney General recommends in his warehouse's best practices memo, measures listed in the settlement that the City of Fontan agreed to after they were sued for approving warehouse projects in violation of CEQUA and measures listed in the settlement that the City of Stockton agreed to for similar reasons.

These measures include electrifying their fleets, having the necessary amounts of refueling and charging infrastructure for their fleets, requiring the use of renewable zero emission energy to power the facility, and require the use of zero emission equipment. We understand that these may not always be workable for a project.

There are built-in exemptions to the fleet and equipment requirements and we have been working on amendments to make the energy and refueling infrastructure requirements easier for projects to implement and we are willing to continue to refine the language in our mitigation measures because we are not interested in harming the logistics industry. They provide an economic benefit to all of our communities. There has been a lot of misinformation on what the bill does. So let me be clear.

This bill does not ban warehouses nor warehouse development. It does not impact all warehouse projects. It is only applicable to new warehouse development of 100,000 square ft. The buffer of 1000 ft is not an arbitrary number. It is a distance that is rooted in science and evidence. It seems hyperbolic that the industry believes the only way to site warehouses is so close to people's homes, children's schools, and the community healthcare centers.

We heard very similar arguments from industry when we were debating the oil setback bill last year, SB 1172 Gonzalez, which created a 3200-foot setback from oil wells and sensitive receptors. I believe that conversation mirrors a lot of what our bill is focused on and it's clear that the legislature supports creating buffer zones between large sources of pollution and sensitive receptors. We've met with opposition and have heard their concerns. We shared language with opposition well in advance of the bill being in print and have had an open-door policy to discuss amendments to the bill.

We are willing and open to negotiate, but have not yet received any amendments to address the concerns they have presented. We continue to invite them to talk with us and provide meaningful feedback, but as of now those conversations have yet to materialize. We are expecting that we will be able to continue the conversations with opposition. I have never been anti-warehouse. I am just pro-community. I understand how pivotal logistics is to the Inland Empire economy.

However, industry and local governments need to do their part to be good neighbors to the nearby communities. With me today to speak in support of the bill are Melissa Romero from California Environmental Voters and Mariela Ruacha from the American Lung Association.

Thank you Chair and members, and thank you Assemblymember Reyes. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. I think we all by now know that it's not an accident that areas most susceptible to environmental racism are the lowest income and communities of color. 40% of all US goods go through the lower LA area that is called the Diesel Death Zone.

The South Coast air basin, which has parts of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and LA counties in it, are some of the most unhealthiest places to live in the entire us. This unchecked proliferation of warehouses in these regions has only made the issue worse, particularly in the Inland Empire. Warehouses are sighted disproportionately next to low-income communities of color, and this comes with enormous truck traffic, equivalent to generating 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide daily.

While CEQA and state agencies provide some protections for communities to attempt to ensure warehouses are good neighbors, these have not been enough. Emissions from sources associated with warehouses account for almost as much nox emissions as all of the refineries, power plants and other stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin combined.

Currently, we're seeing some instances of warehouses built a mere 60ft from homes. In 2020, Javier Becerra, the state Attorney General at the time, sued the Federal Aviation Administration, San Bernardino Airport Authority, and the real estate developer for unlawfully green lighting the expansion of a large warehouse project without sufficiently examining its environmental impact.

And this is precisely why the Attorney General and CARB mandated what this bill calls for, a 1000 foot buffer zone between warehouses and sensitive receptors, because, as the author stated, it reduces exposure to diesel particulate matter by up to 80%. We do not have to choose between community health and creating good jobs. Asking new economic development to be good neighbors is a win-win that protects community health and ensures job creation is in a safe, responsible manner.

Additionally, this bill will ensure that new, affordable housing is built responsibly and creates a community roadmap for thoughtful urban planning that puts community first. And it will protect areas from being rezoned for industrial use over residential use as they have been. So the question here really is, who do we choose to protect? Do we choose to protect industries that go unchecked in continuing to pollute their own workers and residents in the most marginalized communities?

Or will we have the political will to stand up for communities and worker health over profits? We urge you to choose the latter and vote aye on AB 1000. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mariella Ruacha with American Lung Association in California in support. Speaking in support of AB 1000. Over nine in 10 Californians live in an innate community impacted by unhealthy air, with the biggest polluter being the transportation sector. In our 2022 State of the air report, we found that California has six cities in the top 10 for ozone in the nation and seven for particulate matter, with the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin counties ranking amongst the highest for the pollution in the nation.

In addition, the report found that people of color are over three times more likely to live in a county with three failing grades than white people. In California, medium and heavy duty trucks make up less than 5% of the vehicle population, but emit more than half of the emissions from transportation. Poor air quality affects everyone, but especially children who have developing lungs, pregnant individuals, seniors, and those with preexisting conditions.

Pollution can cause a range of negative health outcomes such as asthma attacks, heart attacks, stroke, low birth weight and premature death. Low-income communities and communities of color are also especially vulnerable, and these communities are often where new major sources of pollution are cited. This bill looks to protect those most vulnerable to new sources of transportation emissions, such as nox and diesel exhaust coming from medium and heavy-duty trucks.

By creating a 1000ft buffer zone to protect the health of Californians, we need new facilities to be good neighbors. I urgent aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Hi, my name is Evan Minton. I'm testifying on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, who are in support. I'm testifying on behalf of UFCW Local 1167, who are in support. And I'm with Voices for Progress. We're business owners and business leaders in strong support, priority support of this important measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and members, Elise Fandrich from Tratton Price Consulting. And we're here today representing the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, as well as the Climate Center, who are both in support of the bill. We're also here representing Terawatt Infrastructure, which has a support if amended, position and appreciates the work with the author on that. Thank you.

Shane Ysias and I represent the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and we support heavily on AB 1000.

Hello. Giovanni Aguilera and I support Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, Inland Congregation, United for Change, Inland Empire United, and we're in support for AB 1000.

Hi, Angel Ramirez. I support 350 Riverside and 350 Humboldt. Thank you.

Hi. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, also registering support for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. Thank you.

Sakira Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in strong support. Thanks.

This is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support. Also speaking for Western Center for Law and Poverty, Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Action California, and Let's Green California in support.

Melanie Morelos, on behalf of the Greenlining Institute in support.

Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC, in support.

Gloria Amaya, San Bernardino constituent in support.

Marcus Woods, San Bernardino constituent in support.

Bobbi Jo Chavarria, Chair of the San Gorgino chapter of the Sierra Club which covers Riverside and San Bernardino County in support of AB 1000. I am also the organizer and founder of Grow Fontana and we're here also to represent League of United Latin American Citizens of Riverside Council and are now as well as sisters we community gardening projects. We are all in support of AB 1000.

Daniel Broad on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support. Thank you.

Cynthia Gomez, state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. In strong support.

Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earth justice, in support.

Hello. Kayla Robinson. On behalf of Calstart, in support. Thank you.

Dan Chia for Flow EV Charging. In support.

Hannah Haig. I'm representing the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern Californian Sustainability, the Democratic Club of Claremont, and Just San Bernardino in support.

Frances Smith. And I'm speaking on behalf of Pitzer College and Loma Linda University in full support. And in addition to that, on behalf of Climate Action California and the Climate center in Support.

Sophia Rafikoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Joaquin Castillejos. On behalf of Inland Equity Partnership, Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective, and Safe Routes Partnership in support of AB 1000. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, are there witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, chair Members. James Thuerwachter, excuse me, with the California State Council of Laborers. Happy to be here. First of all, I want to thank the majority leader and her staff. As she mentioned, we've had a lot of discussions both here in Sacramento and in the district, and we look forward to continuing that dialogue. So thank you for that. We try our best to educate policymakers and other stakeholders exactly who the laborers are. We are 70,000 strong across the state. We are black and brown.

We are men and women. Many of us come from the criminal justice system, others from the foster care system. But collectively we build California's infrastructure and we take great pride in doing that. We are sensitive to climate and environmental issues. In fact, we have been visibly increasing our presence in the renewable energy sector as well as growing our footprint in the green job sector, such as those jobs associated with wildfire mitigation.

So when it comes to air quality concerns, especially those in vulnerable communities, we get it. AB 1000 goes too far and puts the livelihoods of our Members and the integrity of the goods movement sector at risk. The Committee analysis does a great job at highlighting the existing regulations in place. It's important to note that just two weeks ago, the EPA granted California legal authority to implement CARB's advanced clean trucks rule. This requires half of all new heavy trucks to be all electric by 2035.

This is the most aggressive in the nation. In addition, in its settlement agreement with the City of Fontana, Attorney General Bonta imposed a 300 foot setback. Local elected officials and Attorney General Bonta both agreed this ordinance should serve as a model for other local governments across the state. AB 1000 calls for a 1000 foot setback, more than triple of that of AG Bonto's recommendation. And the Bill is replete with recommended mitigation measures, some that are not available for developers to incorporate. Our question is why?

We have men and women who live in the IE who are able to lift themselves out of poverty and into the middle class with these local jobs. The cities and counties within the state are just as diverse as our membership. It is local government who is best at making these planning decisions. AB 1000 would Institute a blanket policy that would have a detrimental effect on the good movements industry.

The Bill would make a De facto moratorium and would force our workers to commute longer distances to their job sites, thereby increase in their VMT and tailpipe emissions. With that, we ask you to consider our workforce and respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of Committee Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Although it doesn't expressly state it, we do view AB 1000 as a De facto ban on logistical use facilities throughout California. The policy exacerbates job losses associated with California's goods movement, as my colleague has mentioned, and threatens the very heart of California's economic competitiveness, eliminating not only high paying jobs but also the tax revenues local governments rely upon.

This is in addition to increasing costs for Californians as goods become harder and more expensive to move. Despite this policy being rejected by the Legislature repeatedly, we view this version as worse by injecting for the first time a new private right of action, allowing any individual to have standing to sue to block projects. AB 1000 also quashes critically needed housing at a time when California struggles with the housing affordability crisis.

With a median home prices exceeding 800,000, many housing projects in California rely on mixed use development to lower the cost of housing. By prohibiting housing near the job centers, AB 1000 actually contradicts the state's goal to address climate change by forcing workers to commute farther from the jobs. Simply put, the policy drives these job centers out of the communities and potentially out of the state.

The very foundation for the bill's 1000 foot setback, in our view, is outdated and derived from an almost two decades old ARB guidance document. Almost 20 years later, numerous state and local regulations, as the Committee analysis outlines, they did not exist in 2005 when that study was released by ARB, and these regulations have dramatically reduced emissions associated with the sector and continue to move California to zero emission.

For example, a report out of the Port of Los Angeles details emission reductions associated with the distributions of goods and found that since 2005, when the ARB study was released, particulate matter 10 and 2.5 have been reduced by 98% over this period. Further, as this Committee analysis correctly points out, CEQA already requires rigorous environmental analysis and mitigation measures when citing these facilities. We ask that the Legislature once again reject this statewide one size fits all land use policy because of its devastating effects to California.

But we want to thank the author and we continue to work on resolution. We, for these reasons, respectfully urge a no vote at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair, Members. Mike West, on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, also in opposition. Thank you.

Greg Hurner, on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute, in opposition.

Gail Delihant, with Western Growers Association, in opposition.

Charles Wright, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in opposition.

Dean Sally, with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Natalie Boust with the California Business Roundtable, respectfully opposed.

Matt Roman on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad, opposed.

Taylor Roshan, on behalf of various ag associations, Western Plant Health and the California Groceries Association, opposed.

Ben Triffo, with the League of California Cities, aligned with the concerns expressed in the opposition.

Matthew Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association, representing our affiliate Members at NAIOP California and Building Owners and Managers Association of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Brian White, on behalf of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn, on behalf of the County of San Bernardino, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Chris Reardon with the California farm Bill, respectfully opposed.

Eli Garcia for the Western States Petroleum Association, also opposed.

Chris Shimoda, California Trucking Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Margaret Lie, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair. Bill Buller, on behalf of the Association of Western Employers, in opposition.

Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California, in opposition. Hi, Ryan.

Hi, Ryan Allain. On behalf of the California Retailers Association and the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. P. Anthony Thomas representing California Building Industry Association, opposition. And Madam Chair, go Lakers.

I see the author is also wearing purple. I assume it's for the Lakers right? Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the Committee? Assembly Member Zbur?

So I literally spent all weekend looking at this Bill, and I met with a number of my friends in the environmental community. I met with the laborers, I think three weeks ago. And I really support the author's goal of protecting vulnerable communities around from being exposed to really unhealthy levels of pollutants due to these very large distribution and warehouse centers that are, I think, being approved too easily. So I do think something needs to be done.

But I think this is a really complicated set of issues, and it's the kind of thing that I think is better handled through rulemaking. I mean, we have a nine page analysis, which is what's typically, not criticizing anyone on legislative staff. It's sort of what a legislative staff does on these kinds of bills. But essentially, I was trying to figure out, okay, is 100,000 square feet the right number? Or should it be a larger number?

What is the size of the distribution centers that are really causing sort of the problems in the Inland Empire? And I literally read the attorney general's guidance. I read the South Coast Air Quality Management District's warehouse rule. I read the ARB's guidance. And the author is correct that the numbers that are sort of the bases of the rule come out of those guidance documents, the 1000 sqft and the 100,000 sqft.

But in all those documents, the 1000 sqft was never viewed as sort of an ironclad rule where you basically can't do anything within it. And the 750ft, I know is more flexible. But those numbers are really large setbacks. I mean, I was actually realizing that 100,000 sqft, if you basically did that on a nine acre site, the setbacks that you'd be talking about would be, I think, 80 blocks of buffer around a facility. Now, for some of these facilities, that's probably the right thing to do.

But then I look at the Bill and I just don't think it's cooked yet. And I appreciate the author's willingness to continue working on the Bill. But the thing that troubles me is that sort of, it doesn't seem like the two sides are talking to each other. And I do care about the laborers. They are a hardworking, backbreaking union that really lifts people into the middle class.

And when they're telling me that this is their top concern. I really want us in the environmental community to work hard and look at whether or not this Bill is just capturing too much. And when I say that, I don't mean that we should ever let a vulnerable community. Health impacts affect a vulnerable community. But this Bill, I think, is too broad and picks up too much.

I am going to support it today because of my respect for the author and because of all of my folks in the environmental community, who I know that this is so important. But I'll also tell you that if this was brought to the floor today, I don't think that I could support the Bill. And so I'd like to just go through a couple of things that I'm hoping that you will work on as you continue to work on the Bill. The first thing is the definition.

There's not a definition of what a logistics facility is. Because there's no definition, then I just went to the dictionary, and basically it says that it's a detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or supplies. I think there needs to be a definition because we have a private right of action now. So if the definition is squishy, then obviously we're going to have a lot of litigation and it's going to stop things that I think you don't intend to pick up.

The definition, I think, in my mind, needs to be really specific and much tighter. It needs to make clear that it doesn't pick up things like public storages or Costco's. I actually went looking on the web trying to figure out okay, what's the average size of a public storage. And I found out that the average size of a Costco is 156,000 sqft. So it would pick up a Costco if you thought of that as a warehouse.

So if you basically just say warehousing with truck trips, it would pick up a Costco. And we can't have Costco's with 80 blocks of buffers around them. Right. Similar. Can't do that with sort of a public storage. And the other thing it needs to not pick up is sort of the standard industrial and business parks. I have the Santa Monica business park in my district. It's 1.2 million office space. I don't think it's viewed as a logistics center.

But in that there are office space, there's warehouses, there is manufacturing, light manufacturing. And so I want to make sure that it is not picking up that what you're picking up in the definition is really the kinds of things that are drawing a lot of truck trips in and out of the facility. And I would recommend that you actually look at a truck trip cap because I actually think that that be the basis that is really what is causing the impacts.

It's truck trips to these vulnerable communities and the truck trips that are going through the vulnerable communities with high rates of diesel emissions. I had questions about, the other thing is how this impacts the current warehouses and all these other things I think really needs to be carefully looked at. It says that it only applies to expansion or development of a facility this big. Right. So assuming you can actually tighten it so that it's distribution facilities.

Development of a facility would pick up really anytime you need a grading permit or a building permit. So it does affect all the existing warehouses and anything that is captured in the facility. So it's within 1000 sqft. So you could not, for example, a local jurisdiction, if it's complying with this, couldn't actually get a building permit to put electric charging in. It couldn't get a permit to put solar panels on the roof. It couldn't get a permit to do interior renovations because that's development.

So you need a definition of what picks this up that makes it clear that warehouses can continue and whatever is subject to this rule can continue to operate. I would hope that our friends in the environmental community, especially those with greater policy expertise, would get involved in think I know that. I talked to Evan Minten a couple times now about this and really appreciate yours. I feel appreciate the engagement with the California environmental voters.

And I do think that there's concerns about just sort of sticking to something that's sort of clear, but something that's sort of clear and this sort of crude really, where it picks up things that you don't intend to pick up and in some cases might not actually be protective enough for things. If you actually have truck routes running through a neighborhood. I mean, this doesn't really affect that very much. But you really do need, I think, to focus on the level of truck trips.

You can enforce things, local jurisdictions all the time. Look at truck trips. They estimate them. They're able to basically quantify toxic submission levels at the fence line of a facility. And you can enforce it because in these cases, if we're picking up warehouses, there are bills of lading and you can enforce. So I really do think that, I really respect you.

I know that you're trying to do a very righteous thing, but I also hope that you and the environmental community and the laborers will work together. I mean, this is a clear case I think, of something where we don't want to stop jobs that we don't have to. And I think you can do both things.

But I think the Bill needs a lot of tightening up, and I'm going to go ahead and vote for it today because of the respect I have for you and because this is such a priority in the environmental community. But we'll be looking at what this Bill looks like after it comes back to the floor. So thank you very much.

Assembly Member Hoover.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. And I just want to start by saying that I really appreciate the goal you're trying to get at. I have kind of a controversial warehouse in my district right now, or project, I should say, in my district right now that is being debated by the community. And I think it certainly is something that needs to be taken seriously, paid attention to. But one of the testimony and support mentioned putting communities first.

I think a lot of these issues, the best place to have these conversations is at the local level. And so I am concerned about making kind of a statewide proclamation on this issue. And so that would be my first concern is just kind of the problems with taking this out of the hands of local governments.

Secondly, I just wanted to briefly address. Obviously, if this Bill were to threaten projects, which I do believe the way this Bill is currently written, it would threaten some projects that are currently moving forward. It's certainly a concern for logistics and consumers. And I know that, we all know that that's important. But my bigger concern is the impact it's going to have on jobs.

And I think that so many of these regions, as the opposition so articulately stated, so many of these regions could potentially lose out on so many jobs that are helping pull people out of poverty. And that is a huge concern, especially in a state where we lead the nation in poverty. And then finally to these environmental impacts. I fully appreciate what the proponents have brought up in terms of environmental concerns.

I would love to get your thoughts on this, too, but I am concerned about the pollution we're creating, too, by moving these projects farther out, whether it be commuting, traffic pollution, or having diesel trucks drive farther distances. I'm kind of curious to know if there would be almost a negative environmental impact as well. But I think the opposition stated this as well. But I think we've kind of already passed legislation on this topic to promote renewable trucks and electric trucks, hydrogen technology.

I think we need to let technology solve this environmental problem rather than a new mandate. And so those are the reasons that I'm not going to be able to support the Bill today. Thank you.

Assembly Member Flora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some concerns with this Bill, and Mrs. Hoover and Mr. Hoover have kind of said a lot of it. But there is three communities in my district that were revitalized based on warehousing jobs, based on good paying union jobs. And to move that away and to prohibit that just seems like, quite frankly, a step too far. And there's a reason why we have local electeds. There's a reason why we have boards of supervisors and city planners.

And to me, every community knows their own issues better than we do in Sacramento. And a lot of times we tend to paint with these broad brushes. I am deeply concerned that it will have a huge negative impact. I mean, the City of Manteca, the City of the City of Livermore, all these communities were built around these jobs. And a lot of times, for local government folks, there's no tax base in housing.

They rely on the tax base of these warehouses so they can provide the services that they need to support the community that they're entrusted with. So I view warehousing as a vital part of our communities, quite frankly. And the people literally move closer to work around these warehouses. And when you hear that there is going to be an 80 block buffer, that is a lot of property. And I did not know that number, but that is a big number.

And I do not think that should be taken lightly. And I know you don't take the subject lightly at all, but I would just curious, and then maybe and you can answer in your close with the Attorney General and his number and what he negotiated at 300 foot, what was the thought process of not falling in line with that? And why was 1000 foot? What was the science that made that number? I am just curious on that. Just curious. Thank you.

Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you. So first of all, I want to commend you for taking on this fight. I know that like you said, you're trying to protect people, protect people in your community, and I am supportive of that effort. I am concerned about some of the specifics. There was some discussion about some specifics and we had a chance to talk. First of all, I want to make it clear, get it established on the record that this only applies to newly approved warehouses going forward.

It doesn't affect existing warehouses unless they are repurposed to expand it past the 100,000 square foot threshold?

That is correct.

Okay. So it seems to me like while you have this definition of qualifying logistics use. The real issue is not the warehouse in and of itself, but it's the truck trips that are generated by the warehouse. Is that fair to say?

Absolutely.

Okay. And the reason why I raised that concern is because I was just contacted, as I told you, by a major aerospace company in my district. I won't identify them at this point unless they want to identify themselves. But we're proud that we have world leading aerospace projects being manufactured and assembled in Southern California and I'm especially proud that it's happening in my district. And just one example, the James Webb space telescope was assembled in Redondo Beach.

And if you drive on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, you're passing these huge white buildings that look like warehouses, but they're huge because they're needed to assemble this world leading innovative projects. And they raised concerns with your Bill that somehow it may inhibit their ability to be able to engage in these type of projects. I'm not aware of a lot of truck trips going in and out of those facilities.

And so I would ask that you clarify the definition of qualifying logistics uses with a suggestion perhaps that if he tied it to some kind of threshold number of truck trips, because to me that seems to be the real issue rather than the size of the warehouse. So I gave you my commitment, out of my respect for you. I was going to support it today, but I will be looking for those amendments before I decide whether to support it on the Assembly floor. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'd love to hear any thoughts, if.

You have any, at this, if I may, through the chat. One of the issues that has come up on a number of occasions is the definition, and in our discussions with the Department of Justice, that was an issue. This is a suggested language, and I'd like to read it to you.

Logistics use means any land use for the movement or storage of cargo goods or products for later distribution to business and or retail customers, including any land use serving heavy duty trucks involved in such movement of cargo goods or products.

So just based on what I heard, on first impression, I didn't hear any kind of threshold number of truck trips. And so that's something that I would be looking for. I mean, if it's a couple of truck trips that are shipping in these huge solar panels that go onto this James Webb space Telescope, and I don't think I'm going to have as much issue about it.

So again, I think there should be something about if the truck trips are the real problem, I think your definition should focus on that problem. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Pellerin.

Thank you. So I share some of the concerns that my colleagues have raised today. So I won't repeat all those, but I do think that there are legitimate concerns about as we, with the commutes being longer and more vehicle miles traveled, that this is going to cause some severe impact on our community as well. And I am very grateful to you for all the work you've done on this Bill.

I know this has been a labor of love and taken lots of time, and I appreciate that investment, and I am fully on board with the environmental justice issues, and I totally, completely understand that. And I'm just not sure that moving the warehouses is a solution to the broader regional air quality concerns. But I will be voting to support it today. And I'm hopeful that you will have a chance to sit down with the opposition and address their concerns.

And I Reserve the right to reconsider that vote on the floor. So thank you.

Thank you.

Senator. Member Friedman.

Yeah, I was just going to really say a lot of the same thing, that I think that the importance of the Committee process is to bring up these concerns. To certainly hear from the public, but also to give the author, after all the concerns are heard, the chance to go back and have those dialogue and the discussion. And I know that this author feels very passionately about this issue.

This is a big area of concern in a lot of her community, and this is her chance to address it. And I just want to hear from the author whether you're committed to sitting down with all of the opposition that you've heard every group who wants to meet with you and see if you can't find a compromise that works for your community but also addresses some of the concerns.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Absolutely, I am committed here. I have been in the past and I remain committed to sit down with any of the opposition, all of the stakeholders, to address their issues and to hear their recommended amendments so that we can talk through how we can balance those good jobs. Quite frankly, for me it is very important to protect the jobs of our labors. They're a very important part of our community.

Having jobs close to home I think is extremely important and that's something that they have mentioned to me. Tying to find that balance between the jobs, the economy, but then the health of the community as well, making sure that we're not picking jobs over health. If CARB has said it's 1000ft in order to protect the community 80%, then that's the number that I use. But if there is something more mitigating factors, we can look at other mitigating factors. But again, that will be a conversation and I am absolutely committed to looking at that. Thank you.

Assembly Member Wood.

Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes. I supported you last year in this effort. I'm going to vote to support you again today. But I, like my colleagues, want to reiterate, it's important to continue the conversation with everybody, all the stakeholders at the table, and I know that you'll do that. And then that spirit, that's what I'm going to support you today.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Thank you for bringing this measure forward. You and I have had several conversations about this Bill. Last year, I did support this Bill in a different form when it was at local government. I am supporting the Bill today. I struggled with it because of the opposition and not everything that the opposition believes, but mainly laborers has spent years making these good union jobs in your community and other communities across the state.

And that's very important to me. And I want to make sure that these jobs do stay in our state and not go across the border to Arizona or another nearby state and increasing the vehicle miles traveled of these dirty trucks. And I know that you believe that too. And another reason I struggled, I could have changed a number or taken out a few of those mitigation, that list that you had proposing mitigation.

And it just felt to me, as it was all random for me to take out. And what I want, and I have already communicated to you, is I want you to succeed. I don't want this to fail. I want there to be a buffer. Right, and the number you will sit with the opposition and others and agree, because there could be other proposals that are not requiring a buffer, but they are not coming through this Committee. And I really care about this issue.

I've learned about this because of you, working over the last few years. You have been passionate about this issue. You want to protect your communities. And some Members brought up, zero, let's leave this to the locals. The reason that their settlements is because the locals were violating CEQA and other environmental protections for their communities. So sometimes we can't leave these issues to the locals only. And that's what you're doing. And I want you to win.

But in order to win, you have to listen to all of these concerns. I mean, these are people on this Committee. Most Members of this Committee are environmental champions. And just like you, care about protecting vulnerable communities, and I do. And I took so many calls this weekend. I know we've talked several times. And the reason I keep talking about this is because I don't want you to fail.

Thank you.

Because if you fail, these communities will not be protected. I can't see this fail. And the only way is if you sit down with the opposition and we come up with something that protects communities and makes sure that there are not other measures, that are weak, very weak. Right. And that's why I've been so passionate about this over the last few days. And like I said, I will be supporting. I did not modify anything because it just seemed arbitrary.

I left it in this current form because I know it's going to another Committee and that leaves over a week. Right. To come up with the strongest possible Bill that can protect communities that are around warehouses. And I know that that Bill will be yours. But this is not getting out without you sitting down and talking to laborers.

And I know you and I already talked about this last week and you committed that, if I were to let this Bill out in its current form, it's because you will be working with laborers and others. And I trust you. I know that you really care and you have been a champion on this issue and I want to see you succeed.

So I hope that you take other concerns that Committee Members mentioned today also as part of the Bill that will be heard next week in local government. Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't think I have a motion and a second before I. Okay, so we have a motion by Assembly Member Muratsuchi, second by Assembly Member Pellerin. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate the debate. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I appreciate the comments from the opposition. And I hope that during this week that we get a call and that I want to sit down with our laborers this week. And you have my commitment that if I'm busy all day, then it'll be in the evening. We will make the time to sit down and to talk through this so that I can say on Monday when I'm in local gov.

That I received a call, we made the time, we sat down and we talked it through. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to local government committee. [Roll Call]

Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for the absent Member.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Santiago. Is Assembly Member Santiago in the room? Wow. Yay. Wow. We just said his name and he appeared. Okay, you're next. Whenever you're ready.

Is that the chair's way of saying bravadi would be appreciated?

You know, you're an experienced Member.

I appreciate that, madam Chairman of the Committee. And this is an effort, really to speed up construction of affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters. I think it would take no one by surprise that the City of Los Angeles had declared an emergency, a State of emergency on homelessness, as did the county. What we needed. And this Committee in the past had helped us to work through AB 1197 that allow us to expedite by secret exempting permanent supportive housing, emergency shelters.

But today, and I'll use round numbers when we're looking at approximately 45,000 people who are living on the streets in the City of Los Angeles, close to 65,000 in the county. We are now coming back to this Committee and asking a yes vote on AB 785, which would allow for exemptions to permit supportive housing, emergency shelters and affordable housing. We accept the Committee's recommendation, proposed amendments, which we think make the Bill a much stronger Bill and appreciate the chair's work on this.

And I'll end there in the interest of time and allow for Mayor Bass's representative to present this Bill. And I skipped saying that this is sponsored by her and really is her effort.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Vince Bertone, and I'm the Director of city planning for the City of Los Angeles. I'm here to testify on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is proudly sponsoring this legislation. We all know that the State of California is facing a housing and homelessness crisis. Nowhere is the crisis more apparent than in the city and County of Los Angeles.

The County of Los Angeles represents approximately 25% of the state's population, but has over 40% of the state's unhoused population. While the City of Los Angeles represents roughly 10% of the state's population, it has nearly a quarter of the state's unhoused population. Mayor Bass has confronted this crisis with the urgency that it requires as her top priority in the weeks that followed mayor Bass. As she became Mayor, Mayor Bass issued Executive objectives. Number one, to streamline approvals for 100% affordable housing and temporary housing productions.

She launched Inside Safe, a new citywide proactive housing led strategy to bring people from inside tents and encampments. And she also maximized the use of city owned properties for temporary and permanent housing. In the first 100 days of the Bass Administration, an estimated 4000 Angelinos have been housed. These efforts build on what the city has championed for years.

The city's adopted housing element is considered among the state's most ambitious, with a commitment to plan for over 456,000 homes, over 184,000 of which are dedicated to Low income households. Governor Newsom and the California Department of Housing and Community Development have recently recognized the City of Los Angeles as a pro housing city in recognition of its significant efforts to streamline housing productions.

While state law has created important tools to facilitate protection of housing and has allocated significant funding to address this issue, barriers to planning for and producing new housing continue to exist, including the California Environmental Quality act. Although CEQA process was established with good intention and serves as an important function in mitigating the environmental impacts of government led projects, it has often hindered development and growth in the state, especially as it relates to housing.

SB 785 builds off Assembly Member Santiago's previous legislation, AB 1197, which had a direct impact on the city's ability to grow over 2000 shelter beds and nearly 3000 units of supportive housing with over 6500 additional supportive units in development pipeline. AB 785 responds to the housing crisis and homelessness emergency in Los Angeles by removing barriers that add cost to and slow the construction of publicly funded affordable housing, emergency shelters, supportive housing or transitional housing for people experiencing homelessness and people at risk of experiencing homelessness in the City of County Los Angeles.

In a year where the additional state investment, housing and homelessness will be hard to come by. The legislation offers an opportunity to meaningfully address California's homelessness crisis with no additional cost to the state. We appreciate the Committee staff assistance to ensure appropriate environmental safeguards on development of housing, affordable housing, and committed to working with Members of the Committee to incorporate those provisions at Bill. Finally, we thank Assembly Member Santiago for authoring this important legislation and strongly urge you to vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse public affairs on behalf of United Way Greater Los Angeles in support.

Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Are there additional witnesses in opposition, just in case, seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? I have Assemblymember Pellerin and then Muratsuchi.

Just quick, did you take the Committee amendments?

Yes. Sorry for maybe glossing over that. My language.

Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

All right. Thank you. I think I'll direct my questions. You said you're the Director of the City Department of Planning.

Yes, sir.

Okay. So I've been. This is my 9th year in the Legislature, and I've been so frustrated because I've always heard conflicting things about CEQA. It seems like the position that I've always heard is that CEQA is an important planning process that makes sure that we give notice to stakeholders so that we can have well planned projects that would address a broad range of issues. Of course, not just environmental.

We know that sometimes it's used and probably abused to extract labor concessions. We know that it's sometimes used by NIMBY's to kill projects. We know that it's, you know, and still. Yet, I mean, I I've. I've. I've always heard, especially this Committee, always stand up for the position that categorical exemptions from CEQA are bad policy. Well, I guess maybe I should have, first of all, started by commending Mr. Santiago.

I know that you're a great champion for your community, and you've been fighting for building more housing, and you're going to be a great champion for the City of Los Angeles. But is it the position of the City of Los Angeles that CEQA is inhibiting the building of affordable housing in the city?

Well, thank you. And thank you, Committee Member. Look, California Environmental Quality Act has been around since the 1970s and has done some very important things, really safeguarding some of our very precious natural resources. And that's critically important. What we're looking at is, where is CEQA today in 2023?

And in a place like Los Angeles, which has been built out and urbanized for over 100 years, we believe that there's opportunities to fine tune CEQA to provide some exemptions and limited ways in areas that we know that the environment has already been disturbed and that we can use those targeted really changes to CEQA to really spur housing construction. And one of the reasons why is the CEQA process only applies to discretionary project.

So we're just talking about discretionary projects and whether or not they are exempt from CEQA. When we actually know that, we actually have a better understanding of some of the quantifiable impacts. So for example, in this particular Bill, there's been some provisions there and there to exclude it from high fire hazard severity zones, vacant lands that contain triple resources, farmlands, wetlands and hazardous waste sites, flood hazards and floodways, as well as conservation and habitat lands. And those are really critical processes.

But the reality of it is that a longer CEQA process is very lengthy and expensive. And so that's something that we want to keep in mind, that if you go through what we're trying to do is have it go through a much more simpler process. So if we can move something to an administrative approval, we could have something in the process where our administrative approvals versus our more discretionary approvals go about eight times faster.

And this is real outcomes when it comes to housing and housing projects. So that's something that we find that's been very important. If you look at Mayor Bass's Executive Directive 1, that's been something important, that just since December, since she's put it in place, 28 projects have gone through the process and each of them have averaged around a six to seven month savings. So it goes through much more quickly, which is a savings in terms of the time and the cost for the applicant.

Okay. I guess my concern is, like with every Committee, there's always a concern about creating a precedent. I mean, Mr. Santiago, you rightfully point out that we have an affordable housing crisis, but I know that we have a climate crisis. I had floated an idea to this Committee about a CEQA exemption or streamlining to say like rapidly build our transmission grid that's going to be necessary to be able to bring all the clean renewable energy that we need to bring to meet our climate goals.

And yet I was told that that would be bad policy because CEQA provides important protections. We have a wildfire crisis. We have Members of this Committee that have proposed wildfire CEQA exemptions and we have voted them down. I don't know. I understand we're trying to be problem solvers here, but I'm concerned about the precedent it's creating.

Would you like to?

If it's okay with the chair.

Go ahead and then we'll move on to the other Members.

What I would say about this particularly is that we're asking to develop, we're already deemed suitable to develop. So we're not saying, by the way, I think the Committee amendments actually does make it a lot stronger because the intent is to never do it within said areas. So I'm glad that that was presented to us, but it's worse suitable to develop already.

So we're not saying go do it in the middle of a park or wetlands or whatever it is there's already suitable for development exist certain types of units that could very well be market rate, luxury, above market rate. But what we're saying is if you're going to do permanent supportive housing, if you do emergency shelters, if you're going to do affordable housing with said funding sources, then you can exempt this particular piece.

And it doesn't prevent the council from taking a look at other factors before they make a decision. So there's a whole step of things that they can do before it gets to a council vote. But what we saw in Los Angeles, and maybe you could chime in if need be.

What we also saw is sometimes when permanent supportive housing was happening or emergency shelters, there would be litigation that had nothing really to do, in my opinion, with CEQA, but rather they just didn't want it in that neighborhood. And we're seeing the same thing happen with affordable housing. And Los Angeles a few years ago adopted its fair housing plans. And in adopting its fair housing plans, it's going to need to include affordable housing. That's why we're coming back, extending it, including affordable housing.

And look, I'll say since the last time this Committee worked with us to get 1197, the City of Los Angeles has built 26 bridge unit facilities, home facilities, sorry about 20. I'm going to use rounded numbers because it's easier for me. 2100 total beds and about 3200 supported housing units. And because of what this Committee did in the past and got it to the governor's desk, almost 6500 more units are now being built. But before 1197, and there was very few built because they were all stuck within litigation. So we're not going to solve the homeless problem or produce affordable housing if we don't figure out another way to do it.

All I'm saying Mr. Santiago, is that your Bill is going to be cited in future bills calling for CEQA exemptions for other crises that we're facing.

Assemblymember Zbur.

So I generally have not liked CEQA exemptions, but except when they are in generally urbanized areas outside of high risk fire zones and sensitive habitat areas. And I assume that this doesn't apply in any of those kinds of areas.

That's correct.

Okay. And then also to advance housing, I think the environmental community has supported some CEQA streamlining, especially when we're talking about, you know, about housing and affordable housing in particular, especially in these areas, as long as it's outside of these high risk fire zone and sense of habitat areas. I applaud the mayor for basically trying to tackle these problems. You know she was elected I think with the mandate of actually really trying to address our unhoused problem.

I think we need, this is limited to the County of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles. I think we need to sort of give her some tools to try to get people off the street. I think it was the biggest issue and I think in every one of our campaigns in this last election cycle. So while I share some of the concerns about, from my colleague, they were just expressed. I think this is a good Bill and I plan on supporting it. So thank you.

Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. And as the author and I had a chance to talk, also very supportive of the work you're doing, the work that Mayor Bass in the City of Los Angeles is doing as well, being the second largest city in the state, something I think that also we love to figure out a way to have more tools in our toolboxes. And I look forward to seeing how this can develop and be effective for the City of Los Angeles. Happy to continue to work with you on that. Thank you.

Assemblymember Wood.

Thank you, Assemblymember Santiago. I've been very supportive of the tenants of CEQA for forever, as far as I can recall, and I appreciate your work. I think it's important work, and I think it merits support. I just want to point out it is interesting that three of the 11 bills today deal with exemptions for housing. So clearly something about the current process isn't working well for people as we try to create affordable housing. So I'm just putting it out there. It's challenging, and we've got to do something to solve the housing crisis. And so I applaud you, and I look forward to supporting your Bill today.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay. Thank you for working with the Committee, and thank you to the City of Los Angeles and Mayor Bass for bringing this forward. I agree with Assemblymember Wood's comment. Know, looking at the agenda today, there are several CEQA exemptions, and many Members have expressed concerns about CEQA or wanting to do CEQA reform or have other ideas, and I welcome them. The way that this Committee currently sees these measures is by introducing bills.

And I know that there is a lot of political will, at least from the Members that I've heard of in the Assembly, to do something. The way we do something as legislators right now is by introducing these bills. Right now, each of these bills are each evaluated on its own merits of each Bill. And that's why I was happy to work with you on this and support this current measure. So thank you. Do we have a motion? Thank you. We had a motion by Assemblymember Mathis, second by Assemblymember Hoover. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do really mean it. Thank you for helping us with the amendments. I think that'll be extremely helpful as we move down the legislative path so people understand what we're really trying to do. And we respectfully ask the Committee for an aye vote.

We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee. [Roll Call].

That Bill has nine votes, and we'll leave it open for absent Members. Oh, no that Bill is out.

Thank you.

Okay, next. Final Bill. Assemblymember Laura Friedman, AB 1590.

Good early evening, Chair and members, I accept the suggested Committee amendments on page seven, section six of the analysis. I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. Major coastal resorts, each of which host tens of thousands of guests a year and have a substantial land use footprint, including a golf course, can have significant environmental impacts on our sensitive coastlines, including potential impacts to wildlife, ecosystems, and water quality.

There are concerns that these resorts discharge stormwater to the ocean or to the beach. They may lack sufficient ongoing monitoring to ensure nearby water quality is not being degraded. They are likely to employ large volumes of pesticides and fertilizers, but such uses generally is not publicly disclosed, and there are concerns that some resorts lack requirements to apply up-to-date pest management strategies.

There are also concerns that some of these resorts engage in high-volume use of single-use plastics and other unsustainable materials, which may not always be properly recycled, and that the fugitive release of these plastic materials can impact proximate coastal resources. Although these resorts are subject to environmental conditions and mitigation measures in their coastal development permits under CEQA, there's a need for coordinated and focused oversight to ensure continuing compliance with those requirements.

AB 1590 defines a major coastal resort as a resort or hotel with more than 250 guest rooms, including or operating a golf course. AB 1590 requires that these resorts undergo a biannual audit for environmental compliance and comply with updated species monitoring, stormwater monitoring, pesticide use restrictions, and recycling requirements. It also includes whistleblower protections for employees who provide information on major coastal resorts environmental compliance. And remember, these resorts are in very sensitive coastal areas and so a little bit of extra oversight is warranted.

Testifying in support on behalf of our sponsor is Jordan Fein, Lead Research Analyst with UNITE HERE Local 11, and Nico Gardner-Serna, a coordinator with Sunrise Movement Los Angeles. I would requestfully request an aye vote.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair Rivas and Committee Members. My name is Jordan Fein and I'm a Lead Research Analyst with UNITE HERE Local 11, the union that represents over 32,000 hotel and food service workers in Southern California, and we're the sponsor of AB 1590. We'd like to recognize Committee staff for their hard work preparing the Committee analysis of the Bill. The Bill strengthens the enforcement rules that major coastal resorts are already supposed to follow by moving enforcement from a complaint-based system to an audit-based system.

I'm honored to be joined today by current workers from the Terranea resort, one of the six major coastal resorts that would be covered by the Bill, as well as other members of UNITE HERE Local 11. These and other brave workers and their coworkers have come forward to blow the whistle on what appear to be troubling environmental practices and other issues at the resort.

We've provided you with a report issued by UNITE HERE Local 11, Sunrise Movement, Los Angeles and California Environmental Voters titled "How Green is Terranea?" which reviews the resort's practices concerning wildlife, pesticides and herbicides, water, recycling and other issues. A few of its findings: Between 2017 and 2021, the Terranea used 43 different types of pesticides, herbicides, or plant growth regulators, including one whose safety data sheet indicates that the chemical is very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.

Between 2009 and 2019, the average of fecal coliform levels found in samples at the monitoring site closest to the Terranea was 174% and 270% higher than the averages found at the next two closest sampling sites. We need stronger oversight to ensure that these big resorts are following environmentally responsible practices, and we also need to protect workers who've come forward.

Several years ago, three employees at a large hotel in Santa Monica alleged that management illegally terminated them, and this was after all three had testified at the California Coastal Commission about issues at the hotel in the months before their termination. To ensure workers feel safe sharing information about concerning practices they observe. 1590 includes important protections for whistleblowers. Assemblymember Friedman is a recognized leader on environmental protection, so we're proud to stand with her as the author of this Bill and respectfully request an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Rivas and Committee members. My name is Nico Gardner-Serna and I am the Lead Coordinator for the Sunrise Movement Los Angeles. We are a movement of young people and allies fighting for a Green New Deal, climate justice, well funded communities, and millions of good-paying union jobs. We are proud to support AB 1590. The report issued by UNITE HERE Local 11, the Sunrise Movement, LA and California Environmental Voters, "How Green is Terranea?" illustrates the need for AB 1590.

For example, it appears that the Terranea has a disturbing record of raccoons and other mammals being trapped at the resort by commercial trappers. The report describes records showing that 70 raccoons were trapped on the Terranea property, including three mother raccoons and their babies between January 31, 2015 and December 17, 2017. Terranea workers have also reported that plastic bottles used by guests in banquet events and other recyclable items, as well as food waste, have been discarded with the resort's ordinary garbage.

Even if the waste is taken to a sorting site, the commingling of trash, especially organic waste and recyclable items, can result in contamination that reduces the rate of recovery for recyclable products. The resort's reported use of single-use plastic beverage bottles is also inconsistent with sustainable practices.

This Bill includes common sense provisions like prohibiting major coastal resorts from using single-use plastic bottles, straws, and plastic bags for retail, requiring recycling bins in guest rooms and having the resorts separate recyclable waste or recyclable materials, organic waste, and other solid waste. Workers fear retaliation if they file complaints, which is why a complaint-based system of enforcement is dysfunctional. In order for environmental regulations to work at major coastal reports, we must move to an audit-based system, which AB 1590 would provide.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1590, and we thank Assemblymember Friedman for her leadership on this issue.

Thank you. Next, are there any additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I work at Terranea Hotel and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alan Moreno. I work at Terranea Resort and I strongly support this Bill.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Gomez. I strongly support this Bill. We do need a stronger environment regulations. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next, are there any witnesses in opposition? You can make room for the two witnesses, please.

Good afternoon Chair, members of the Committee. Adam Regele, again with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. First, we take issue that the Bill asserts, without adequate supporting evidence or really scientific merit, that major coastal resorts pose more environmental impact than other developments along the coast.

For example, the pro's legislation does not include municipal, state, or local golf courses, private golf courses not associated with the hotel, recreational fields and parks, non-golf lodgings, industrial uses, or any other facility other than a hotel lodging that operate along the coast. AB 1590 only targets a small subset of visitor-serving businesses which have demonstrated, in our view, decades of environmental stewardship, for they too have a strong incentive to maintain clean and healthy environments for their guests.

Second, coastline development already requires the most rigorous and thorough environmental review of any land use type. The existing regulatory framework is complex, technical, specialized. The Bill would serve to add conflict and confusion to long-standing legal regimes that already regulate pesticide use, water quality permitting, monitoring, employee protections under the Labor Code, and ecological resource protection more generally done by the Coastal Commission, not to mention, of course, the California Environmental Quality Act.

Additionally, privatizing the audit process that is currently conducted by highly trained and expert agency staff, we believe is a disservice to those agencies and the public at large. The proposed private consultant idea, which would not have the breadth of expertise nor the knowledge of the regulatory regulations that agency staff retain from the County Environmental Health Bureaus, California Department of Pesticide Regulations, County Agricultural Commissioners, California Department of Food and Ag, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State Water Quality Control Boards.

Private audits conducted without the benefit of these expert agency staffers, we believe, will lead to inconsistent interpretations, application of regulations, and arbitrary enforcement. Finally, it is troubling the Bill bans packaging and products already regulated under existing recycling programs. For example, the Bill bans single-use PET bottles, which is one of the most recycled products in the world, with year after year recycling rates exceeding 70%. We are not aware of any studies or indications that coastal resorts are unique or otherwise failing to meet state recycling levels.

For these reasons, we strongly urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. Nicole Quiñonez on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association with an opposed, unless amended position on AB 1590. We request the Bill be amended to delete the prohibition of lawfully-registered pest management products. HCPA member companies manufacture household and institutional pesticide products that are safe when used according to the label. We appreciate the author's recognition of integrated pest management or IPM, and support efforts to apply IPM strategies.

Implicit in any IPM program is that the lowest-risk pest management will be used whenever possible, but higher-risk pesticides are available if needed. Unfortunately, AB 1590 is inconsistent with the overall goals of IPM by arbitrarily removing pesticide tools. It is especially important to have all tools available in a large resort setting where pests can pose health risks if not managed correctly.

For example, cockroaches can trigger asthma and cause illness through food contamination, rodents can spread several diseases, and bedbugs can go unnoticed for long periods of time until the population has grown significantly, requiring all tools to eliminate the pest. Pesticide products are already heavily regulated, evaluated, and restricted as appropriate at the federal and state level. EPA must ensure a pesticide can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and without posing unreasonable risk to the environment before allowing the product to be sold.

Further, coastal resorts are required to comply with audits by the County Agricultural Commissioners and annually report their pesticide use. County Ag Commissioners have the authority to enforce against the unlawful use of pesticides in the state already. While we appreciate the suggested amendment in the analysis to allow for certain exceptions to the prohibitions in the Bill, we are concerned limiting the use for building maintenance purposes would ignore the human health component of pest management.

Lastly, it seems backwards that AB 1590 would require the audit prescribed in the Bill to include an investigation related to the types, quantity, and frequency of the pesticides that the major coastal resort has used after banning a significant class of the pesticides. At the very least, it would make sense for the Legislature to wait to gather that data through the audit process before banning certain types of pesticides. For these reasons, we do request AB 1590 be amended to delete that prohibition. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in opposition?

Yes. Steve Cruz for California Business Properties Association in opposition.

Good evening. Taylor Roschen on behalf of Western Plant Health Association, RISE and CropLife America, and oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Chair and members, Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council also in opposition.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of American Beverage Association in opposition.

Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association also in opposition.

Audra Hartmann on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, in opposition.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Natalie Boust with the California Business Roundtable, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Next, we're ready for questions and comments from the Committee, and I'll start with Assemblymember Zbur.

After consulting with Assembly Ethics Council, I will not be participating in this item today and will not be voting as a result of my prior legal practice. So thank you.

Assemblymember Muratsuchi?

Thank you very much. First of all, I just received this right now, this is in my district. I had absolutely no courtesy notice that you were going to be bringing a Bill forward that's going to specifically target a major business in my district, and so I'm pretty upset about that. I've been an ally of UNITE HERE at Terranea. I have a strong record also of environmental protection, especially for ocean protection.

And so I would suggest to UNITE HERE that you should work and reach out to me in addressing issues in my district. That's all. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Assemblymember Pellerin.

So we've heard some concerns from the opposition. And are you going to be working with them on trying to resolve those? I know I've got some concerns how there's just like six of these resorts that are getting targeted, and I kind of feel like what's good for one should be good for everyone. So I do have some concerns with the Bill.

Absolutely. And I do apologize to my colleague. You definitely should have been reached out to, and I thought that that had happened. And I do apologize. So accept my apologies. You are an environmental champion, so I know you take these issues very, very seriously. And absolutely, we are certainly willing to talk to address any concerns.

Any other questions or comments from Committee members? Seeing none. Do I have a motion?

I can move the Bill. I'm a Committee Member, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, I'll move the Bill.

Okay. Thank you. For a second? I'm going to second.

Obviously, there's a lot of concerns just from Members of this Committee, especially Muratsuchi that represents Terranea. I hope that you take this seriously and address concerns. Some of us are supporters of UNITE HERE and the struggles, the labor struggles that have been, that we've heard about at Terranea. I know I met with UNITE HERE on Friday, and I just want to make sure that this is taken seriously and that the Members of this Committee are consulted.

I think most of us here are environmental champions in the Assembly. That's why we were selected to be on this Committee. We want to work on these issues. But I'm going to speak on behalf of the members that they do expect to be consulted and want to participate in developing or in hearing from you about what would work. So I seconded it, even though no one else in the Committee did, just to continue that conversation, but with the expectation that this won't happen again.

So thank you. Would you like to close? I'm sorry.

Sure. And I understand that this Bill feels like a broad Bill, but I would say that these mega resorts, the reason that it's limited to large hotels with golf courses is because there are indications that there are environmental impacts. And just because a company agrees to something when a permit is given, there should be some ongoing monitoring many years later. It shouldn't just be on the employees to have to blow the whistle on their employer.

There should be a way of making sure that what's done reduces the impact of very large developments on the coastline. And certainly having protections for workers who do come forward is very important so that workers feel that they can let authorities know when there's a problem. So we will absolutely commit, if we get the Bill out, we absolutely commit to sitting down with all of you and other members and making sure that we address whatever concerns there are. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended, to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call].

That Bill has three votes. That Bill fails. That was the last Bill on the agenda. We will move to, we're going to go in file order for those members that need to add on.

We'll start with AB 389.

Motion is do pass to governmental organization Committee. [Roll call].

Motion is do pass to local government Committee. [Roll call].

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

That Bill is out. Next, item two, AB 631.

That Bill has eight votes. That Bill is out. Next, item three, AB 785 or no, that one's out. I'm sorry. Item three is already out. Item four, AB 953.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. [Roll call].

That Bill has 11 votes. That bill's out. Item five, AB 1000.

That bill has eight votes, it's out eight to three. Item six, AB 1290.

Motion is do pass to, appropriations. [Roll call].

Bill has eight votes. That Bill is out. Next is item seven, AB 1318.

Motion is do pass to local government Committee. [Roll call].

That Bill has 11 votes. That's out. Item eight, AB 1449.

Motion is do pass as amended, to Housing and Community Development Committee. [Roll call].

Bill has eight votes. That Bill is out. Item nine, AB 1465.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

Bill has eight votes. That Bill is out. Next, item 10. AB 1548.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll call].

Bill has 11 votes. That Bill is out and that is it. We were done with item 11. Okay. So we are adjourned. Thank you.