Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing. We have seven measures on the agenda today. Five measures are proposed for consent. SB 39, Laird, SB 91, Umberg, SB 275, Grove. SB 360, Blakespear. SB 835, Smallwood guevas. We don't have a quorum yet, but I will start as a Subcommitee so we can begin to hear the bills. But why don't we. Well, we can't vote. Never mind. So, Senator Min, if you'd like to start. So this is. Yes, SB 337 by Senator Min.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, today I'm presenting SB 337, which would establish into law a statewide goal to conserve 30% of California lands and coastal waters by the year 2030. We are in the midst of a global extinction crisis, and we need to double down before it's too late. 1 million species are at risk of extinction worldwide, and California is not exempt from this crisis. Our state is one of 36 global hotspots for biodiversity, with the highest concentration of at risk species in the United States. More than 900 of the state's species are at risk of extinction, and two thirds of our native plants will lose most of their range within the next century. According to some scientists, the extinction crisis is the most serious environmental threat that we face if we want civilization to move forward. Because extinctions are not reversible, conserving our lands and waters is one of the best tools we have to prevent extinctions and protect biodiversities and ecosystem services. Conserving lands and waters can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon. And I just add, open spaces are part of our California identity. So this is culturally very important as well. Protecting 30% of our land and coastal waters is the bare minimum needed to avoid ecosystem collapse, safeguard our biodiversity, and help to stabilize the planet's climate. According to leading scientists, this Bill would codify the 30 x 30 goal that was first proposed through the Executive order issued by Governor Newsom in 2020. Establishing the goal and statute will ensure that it persists and remains a commitment for future administrations through the year 2020. Today, I have with me Pamela Flick, California Program Director for the Defenders of Wildlife, sponsoring the Bill to provide testimony.

Thank you, Senator Min. Good afternoon. As Mr. Min mentioned, I'm Pamela Flick. I'm the California Program Director for Defenders of Wildlife, which is a national conservation organization dedicated to the protection of all animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders is proud to sponsor SB 337 because it would improve conservation of our state's unparalleled biodiversity by codifying California's 30 by 30 state policy goal this Bill comes at a critical time. Nature around the world is in a State of crisis which threatens our planet and humanity. As Senator Min mentioned, approximately 1 million species are threatened with extinction, including nearly a thousand different species here in our state alone. As a globally significant biodiversity hotspot with the most special status species in the nation, California has much to lose. Given the accelerating climate change impacts that we're experiencing, coupled with the extinction crisis, time is of the essence. SB 337 builds on an important movement for global action. California is already a noted leader in protecting biodiversity, with more than 24% of our land in protected status. But some of our most diverse areas and coastal waters remain unprotected, including those that provide ecosystem services critical to Californians, including water filtration, carbon sequestration, and pollination. We must codify California's commitment to conserving our state's biodiversity and to ensure that the 30 x 30 policy goal endures beyond the current Administration. With SB 337, the Golden State can continue to lead the way towards meeting this important conservation goal and set an example for the rest of the country and indeed the world. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote. Thank you, Committee Members, and thank you, Senator Min, for authoring this important Bill.

I believe we have a quorum. I'm going to stop and take role so that we're able to vote. Secretary, please take roll.

Rivas? Here. Rivas. Here. Flora. Flora? Here. Addis? Friedman? Hoover? Mathis? Mathis? Here. Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi? Here. Pellerin. Pellerin? Here. Ward. Wood. Zbur.

Okay, we have a quorum. Thank you. Next. Any additional witnesses in support? Hold on, I think we need to connect the mic.

We'll give that a whirl again. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the Pacific Crest Trail Association, in support.

Thank you, chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley. On behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, the California State Parks Federation, Save the Redwood League, and Semper Byron's front. We're in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and Support.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino for California Native Plant Society, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sonoma Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, Environment California, Santa Clara Audubon Planning Conservation League, Environmental Defense Fund, California Coast Protection Network, Pacific Forest Trust. I will save you the time. There are a lot of organizations that have asked me to speak in support of this Bill, so thank you.

Thank you. Up next, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Assembly Members, 1st, 2nd by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, Secretary. Please take the roll.

Motion is do pass to appropriations. Rivas Aye. Rivas aye Flora. Flora aye. Addis. Friedman. Hoover. Mathis. Not voting. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi aye, Pellerin. Pellerin aye, Ward. Wood aye. Zbur aye.

That Bill has five votes. We'll leave it on call, wait for the absent Members. Can I get a motion for the consent calendar? We have a motion and a second. Can you please take the roll for the consent items?

Consent items are SB 39. Laird. SB 91. Umberg. SB Two, seven, five. Grove. SB three, 60. Blakespear. SB Eight, three, five. Smallwood. Guevas. Reevas aye Rivas aye Flora. Flora aye Addis. Friedman. Hoover. Mathis. Mathis aye Merzucci. Meredsucci aye Pellerin. Pellerin aye Ward. Wood. Zbur. Zburaye.

It has how many? Five? It has six votes; we'll leave it open for absent Members. We're waiting for Senator Cortese, and there'll be the final bill presented. Welcome. We're ready for SB 406 by Senator Cortese. Whenever you're ready. Okay, you have a motion and a second.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Apologize if I've kept you waiting at all. I just came off the Senate floor, and I appreciate the prompt to get over here. Thank you for allowing me to present SB 406 to you today. I will be taking the amendments. I want to get that on the record, and I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working so closely with us to get this bill in good shape to present here today.

SB 406 enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support in the first House and extends to local jurisdictions and existing CEQA exemption that applies to the state's provisions of financial assistance for affordable housing projects, but not the projects themselves. Many local governments across the state have adopted measures to provide financial assistance for the development and construction of affordable housing. In 2016, my own county, Santa Clara County, voted to approve by referendum an affordable housing bond to raise 950,000,000 dollars to support the creation and preservation of 4,800 affordable units.

Similar measures, of course, have been adopted elsewhere: for example, the County of Alameda, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, but local government agencies often make CEQA findings even though the project will undergo separate CEQA review by a lead agency. They feel this is necessary because a decision to help finance a project could be interpreted as discretionary approval.

Applying CEQA in this context is inefficient, duplicative, and ultimately delays and drives up the cost of affordable housing. The Legislature has already acknowledged that CEQA review of affordable housing financing creates unnecessary burdens. When there's another lead agency, current law provides that CEQA does not apply to the Department of Housing and Community Development or the California Housing Finance Agency.

SB 406 simply extends the same exemption at the state level to local governments. As such, the bill will help fully realize the Legislature's efforts to prioritize affordable housing through streamlining measures such as SB 35 and AB 2162. With us today is Josh Tosney, Deputy County Counsel for Santa Clara County, and with that, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you to Senator Cortese and his staff and to the Chair, Members, and Committee staff. Santa Clara County is pleased to sponsor SB 406. Since 2015, our board of supervisors has approved approximately one billion dollars in funds to support 66 affordable housing projects in ten cities, yielding over 6,200 units in the pipeline, including approximately 4,000 units in operation or under construction. The bulk of this funding is from the county's Affordable Housing Bond which is used to provide low interest loans to developers of affordable housing projects.

Our board approves these loans on a project by project basis. The local zoning authority, which is typically a city, acts as the lead agency that undertakes CEQA review, but the county's discretionary approval to provide financial support is itself arguably subject to CEQA. To avoid the possibility of litigation, our county makes its own independent CEQA determinations as a responsible agency. This slows our funding process without much corresponding benefit.

In a typical situation, we issue a loan at the pre-development stage to help fund the designs, planning documents, and environmental review for new projects. These loans are often executed before the developer and the lead agency have the necessary information to make full CEQA determinations, and even if the determinations have been made, they frequently depend on the special permitting processes or zoning requirements implemented by the lead agency, which fall outside the county's jurisdiction.

This creates significant challenges for purposes of the county's CEQA review, it can delay the approval process, and it limits capacity to support new projects. The county also issues loans to help fund construction after the lead agency has completed its environmental review and issued all necessary permits. Undergoing additional CEQA review at this stage is duplicative, and it may also create an opportunity for a collateral challenge to a project.

The application of CEQA to a responsible agency's funding decision as opposed to the lead agency's approval of the project itself provides minimal benefit and slows the approval of affordable housing. By expanding the existing exemption for state funding of affordable housing to local governments, SB 406 would promote the state's affordable housing goals without undermining CEQA. Committee amendments help ensure this by clarifying that the bill's exemption applies only to local agencies that are not acting as lead agencies. Thank you for considering this measure. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

None. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, in the room. Yes. Sorry.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in support.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in support.

Jeff Neill on behalf of the City of Visalia in support.

And Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Yeah, we already have a motion and a second. So we have a motion by Assembly Member Mathis; second by Assembly Member Pellerin. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please take the roll.

The motion is 'do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development Committee.' Rivas? Aye. Rivas, aye. Flora? Aye. Flora, aye. Addis? Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Mathis? Aye. Mathis, aye. Muratsuchi? Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wood? Aye. Wood, aye. Zbur? Aye. Zbur, aye.

The bill has ten votes; that's out. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, next we will add on for the Members that were absent for the first bill: SB 337.

The motion is 'do pass to Appropriations.' Chair voting aye. Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Hoover? Not voting. Hoover, not voting. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wood? Aye. Wood, aye.

That bill has eight votes; that bill is out, and finally, the consent calendar.

Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wood? Aye. Wood, aye.

That has ten votes and that's out. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.