Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

So for individuals wishing to provide public comment today, the number is 877-226-8163, access code 3308805, and we're asking for Members to come on down. So we'll get started shortly. Oh, here we are. Great. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Really appreciate you being here. So we're going to start as a subcommittee. We've got a total of nine bills on today's agenda.

Two bills are on the consent calendar. So that's Item Three: AB 777 and Item Seven: AB 1307, and let's ask Assembly Member Papan to come on up and present AB 246 which is Item One in your agendas.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. So nice to be with you this morning. This is a women's health bill, and what this Bill seeks to do is eliminate PFAS from menstrual products. As we know, these compounds have been linked to severe health problems, breast and other cancers, hormone disruption, kidney and liver damage, and immune system disruption. In light of these findings, California has moved to eliminate PFAS from many different items and products in the market.

But even with all this progress, PFAS still remains a part of our most intimate products, which are menstrual products. In a recent study, 48% of pads and liners tested were found to contain PFAS, as were 22% of tampons. AB 246 has two main components. First, it would prohibit any person in California from manufacturing, distributing, or selling a menstrual product that contains regulated PFAS. The second thing it does is it will prohibit unintentional added PFAS above 10 parts per million beginning in 2027.

California's pursuit for gender equality requires us to take action and ensure the feminine hygiene projects are safe, clean, and free from forever chemicals. So with me today is Jessica Gauger to testify in favor of the Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. I would note this is a women's health bill, but also a water quality bill. You know statewide source control strategies like what is proposed in this Bill are the most cost-effective methods to keep PFAS out of our waste stream and ensure water quality. So we do think it's important to continue moving away from the non-essential uses of PFAS and consumer products consistent with the approach outlined in this Bill. We urge your support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there others who want to voice support for the Bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the City of Camarillo, in support.

Good morning. Susan Little, with Environmental Working Group, in support.

Thank you.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Erin Wooley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you.

Amara Eger, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the Queen Seas Lobbying Coalition in support.

Thank you so much. All right, anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill or express opposition, come on up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Daw Keopke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, unfortunately here today in regrettable opposed unless amended position. But to be clear, absolutely clear, CMTA and its member companies do not oppose the overarching goal of this Bill to ban intentionally added PFAS in menstrual products. No question, full stop. The concern really comes about based on recent amendments related to the unintentionally added threshold being set at 10 parts per million. That is an incredibly low threshold, especially for unintentionally added PFAS.

Our manufacturers are not adding these chemicals for any intentional functional effect whatsoever. However, as was noted in the analysis and has been discussed in multiple jurisdictions on this Bill and others, PFAS chemicals are ubiquitous, unfortunately, in our environment. Whether they're found in our air, wastewater, even just drinking water sources, soils, what have you. And so the ability to control for some of this unintentionally added PFAS presents significant challenges.

And while our manufacturers certainly are doing their best to work through their processes to try to mitigate unintentional contamination, inevitably throughout the supply chain and distribution chain, there are situations where they're finding unintentionally added PFAS in products in that kind of system chain of distribution for these products. Further, the specific standard cited for the basis for the 10 parts per million, notably, is a standard that's focused on extractable organic fluorine versus the Bill's call out relative to total organic fluorine.

Those are not apples-to-apples comparison and standard for the purpose of evaluating this particular threshold. The extractable organic fluorine EOF standard that's cited as the basis for 10 PPM is very different and doesn't necessarily even capture the full range of PFAS chemicals, given the thousands of chemicals that fall into this class. So when we're talking about a total organic fluorine approach to this, there's not been any kind of proof that that is a reliable testing standard, and we're still seeing that evolve over time.

So really, this comes down to a challenge for manufacturers, again, who are not intentionally adding these chemicals, who truly want to be compliant. But as we look ahead, there's a question about how do they know whether they can comply, given the potential for exposures throughout the supply and distribution chain? Further, are they going to be required to hold to that 10 ppm for unintentionally added contamination on a per tampon per pad basis?

And if that's the case, how are they going to go about testing each individual tampon and pad for the purpose of putting into the market to ensure they're below that threshold? There are some significant workability issues associated with that. Our folks have agreed that they believe that by 2027, they could definitely get to a 50 ppm.

We've also proposed, perhaps looking to DTSC to the extent that DTSC is not the right form, perhaps even OEHA, as a means by which to look at some of the standards, the opportunities for addressing potentially a lower threshold. But as the Bill is currently constructed with regard to the unintentionally added threshold that is of high concern for our manufacturers. We do look forward to continuing the discussions to try to mitigate some of these concerns. But again, our concerns are not with the goal of the Bill, but that specific provision. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks, you want to raise concerns?

Yeah. Julie Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, echo those concerns. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Let's go to the phone lines, see if folks want to weigh in, either in support or opposition of the Bill. 877-226-8163 Code 330-8805.

And if you would like to speak in opposition or in favor of AB 246, please press one and then zero at this time. We'll go to line number 17.

Morning Chair, Martin Radosevich, on behalf of The California Nurse Midwives Association and NARAL Pro-Choice California, in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line number 18.

Hello, this is Laura Rosenberger-Heider, do you hear me? Yes. Please vote yes for AB 246.

Thank you. We'll go next to line number 11.

Philip Vanderclay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further in queue.

Okay, so we'll bring the Bill back to the Committee. I think the challenge that we're having here with. Thank you, Dawn, for the concerns that you raised. The challenge I think we've been having here is with data and making sure we really get some good numbers here. And certainly, there's lots of concern about any concentration of PFAS in products, particularly those products that are going to be easily, in a situation where the PFAS could easily be absorbed into the body.

The proposed 50 parts per million that have been raised by the opposition as a possible amendment by 2027 I believe. That's a standard that is in line with what we do for clothing, but I think we can all agree that menstrual products have a different standard than a jacket. The 10 parts per million is basically what the EU is doing.

I know that our staff, if there's some data to show that unintentionally added PFAS in menstrual products are likely to exceed the proposed 10 parts per million, or that unintentional contamination can't be mitigated to below this value in order to protect public health, we're certainly interested in seeing it, and we want to have that data help to drive the conversation.

I think the challenge is that we're flying a little blind here, and I think there's been a lot of reluctance on our Committee's part to move the standard beyond where it is in the Bill right now, which, as I say, is generally in line with EU standards. In the absence of additional data. I totally hear the concerns about general workability, but I want to have it grounded in something more than just concerns. But if you've got a response to that, Dawn, I'm certainly happy to hear it.

Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Again, Dawn Keopke, CMTA. I would just note that in the analysis, there is reference to some of these products being tested. I think it came up, I think the note said something to the extent about 22% of these products are testing in a range of, I think it said 12 to 28 ppm or so, give or take that number. And I think that that's important to know. We're talking about CMT members who are not intentionally adding these chemicals.

So if testing is showing for these products that are not intentionally added PFAS, that you're still reaching above that range. It begs the question, how can we mitigate that if manufacturers are looking to control kind of exposure to that at every turn, and yet we're still seeing those pop up.on so what are.

So what are the manufacturers doing in Europe?

That, I'm sorry, I cannot speak to. I'd be happy to have a conversation with CMTA members about that. Again, I think part of the issue here is that as we've all recognized, the science as well as the testing methodologies are evolving. And so I think from our members' standpoint, to the extent that we can get at some point to a lower threshold below 50 ppm, our manufacturers are not saying no. I think the issue is more just about the reliability of these test methods.

The approach to testing, again, are we testing on an individual tampon by tampon basis within a box and the liability associated with one tampon being at 11 ppm in that box and the other being at nine. Like where does that leave these manufacturers who again, are not intentionally adding these chemicals.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that sort of detail we can figure out some language on.

And further, I would just offer as well, Mr. Chair, as we met with staff and certainly appreciated that time, they spent a lot of time with us on this Bill.

As we've explored additional background and provided examples in other chemical arenas where the science was evolving and showing the data around kind of testing, reliability, variation in lab testing, what have you, it's not out of the realm of possibility that there are going to be challenges even as the labs move forward to lower testing thresholds, that there's still going to be variability as the science evolves, especially given that this total organic fluorine approach is incredibly stringent across thousands of chemicals.

And so that really just presents additional complexities. Again, our manufacturers are not arguing with the focus on banning PFAS, intentionally added, it's a matter of workability in the near term, and we appreciate your consideration.

Okay, I've got to go present a bill over to appropriations, and they're literally about to adjourn. So I'm going to hand over the gavel to Senator Menjivar. I think what we ought to do what I'm going to recommend we do is pass out a Committee today. The Bill is double referred. It's going to Judiciary Committee. I know that you've also shared some of your concerns with the chair over there and with the staff over there.

And maybe what we ought to do is get a meeting together with the author, the sponsors, the folks from CMTA and EQ, and Judiciary staff and just sort of talk through some of these workability issues. I think we ought to spend a little bit of time looking at, I'd love to get your feedback on what your European counterparts are doing to meet the standards that are there, and then we can get to a place where we're able to feel good about the Bill moving forward. So that's my recommendation, if that's amenable to you.

Certainly. I think the Bill is reasonably tailored. We're talking about a phase into 2027. We can already detect for 10 parts per million. It's an extremely dangerous chemical. It is intimate to the body when it's found in menstrual products. We tailored the Bill to get there. Taking into account is what manufacturers might go through upstream for unintentional inclusion. And as a twofer, you get an environmental benefit as well.

So we've been down this road for quite some time so that we could address those concerns, but certainly happy and willing to talk further.

Okay. Appropriations is already adjourned, so my bills. We'll find out. So, there we are.

Yeah. We can test today to get to 10 parts per million. And again, this is a 2027 phase in, so that we can deal with the unintentional and not be overly burdensome on manufacturers. When you weigh that against the danger of this chemical and how intimately it's used, I think the Bill is very balanced.

Yeah. Okay. I think our tendency has been to be along the lines of very sympathetic to not only your goals, but the details. There may be some workability issues that we can, and maybe we can learn from the European model to help better hone exactly how we're going to proceed. They're obviously very strict, justifiably so. So look forward to discussions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

But, yeah, thank you. We can't move anyway because we don't have a quorum. Okay. So thank you. Yeah, I really appreciate it. Thank you.

I appreciate your time and the discussion.

Yeah. Looking forward to further. Okay, let's call up facing Member Weber, who's also here to talk about PFAS. So everyone can stay. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you.

All right.

You may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, good morning, Chair and Members. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's technical amendments and thank the Committee staff for working so hard with my staff on this bill. I'm here to present AB 727 which prohibits the sale, distribution, and manufacturing of cleaning products containing PFAS. We all know that PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are found in a staggering array of consumer products, usually to create nonstick, water-resistant or stain repellent coating.

Nonstick pans, umbrellas, nail polish, grease-resistant packaging like popcorn bags and plastic water bottles are examples of products commonly known to contain PFAS. These chemical compounds are extremely stable and are very difficult to break down, earning the nickname 'forever chemicals.' Because of proven health risks and effects, there have been several bills banning the use of PFAS in several products, including cosmetics, food packaging, and firefighting foam.

The Environmental Working Group, which found approximately 50 percent of industrial-grade floor polishes which are used in public buildings, schools, and commercial offices, also contain PFAS, and one in six household cleaning products do as well. PFAS floor polishes can expose janitorial workers and the public to airborne PFAS. This also enters our wastewater when floors are mopped and clean.

The California State Water Resource Control Board issued a statement monitoring and reporting orders for PFAS in drinking and wastewater in 2020 which found that a significant amount of PFAS were entering wastewater through residential and commercial customers. Water and wastewater operators are proactively working to reduce sources of PFAS in their systems. Still, removing PFAS entirely at the endpoint is a daunting and cost prohibitive task, and therefore, source control is the most effective policy approach.

For these reasons, AB 727 prohibits the sale, distribution, and manufacture of cleaning products containing PFAS chemicals. This prohibition applies to cleaning products used for industrial, institutional, household, automotive, and water vessel maintenance purposes. This bill lowers the threshold of PFAS and products from 2026 to 2028, and it also authorizes the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel or a district attorney to bring action against an entity that violates this provision.

I'm joined here today by the bill's sponsor, Susan Little, on behalf of the Environmental Working Group, and Jessica Gauger on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member Weber. My name is Susan Little. I'm a senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group which is one of the bill's co-sponsors, and as the Committee well knows, and as the Assembly Member relayed, PFAS are called 'forever chemicals' because they do not break down in our environment and they build up in our blood and organs.

They're linked to a range of serious health harms, and I wanted to remind the Committee that there's no safe level of PFAS exposure that's been identified. PFAS are used in a wide range of consumer products, and Legislature has already taken action to remove PFAS from many of them. All of these efforts in this bill prohibit the entire class of PFAS chemicals and define PFAS as 'chemicals that contain at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.'

This definition is consistent with the definition of PFAS used by other state agencies and states around the nation. As the Assembly Member mentioned, EWG reviewed hundreds of company websites and ingredient lists of floor cleaning and maintenance products and found that many of them do contain PFAS. In fact, almost 50 percent of the commercial floor products contain PFAS, meaning that the floors of our public buildings, offices, hospitals, retail stores, schools, and possibly even the floors of this building are coated with PFAS.

And studies have shown that this PFAS enters the air when disturbed, but other cleaning products contain PFAS as well. Dishwasher rinse aids, multipurpose cleaners, and now aerosol air fresheners and cleaning products contain PFAS-based propellants. We're unwittingly spreading and spraying PFAS in our homes, offices, and schools.

Other states as well as other nations are working to prohibit nonessential uses of PFAS as soon as possible. We know that many cleaning products, even floor finishes and polishes, are made without PFAS. We don't need PFAS to clean. Alternatives are readily available, and we'd like to get these chemicals out of our homes and indoor areas and would ask that you support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, again. Jessica Gauger with CASA. We are a co-sponsor of this bill and do support it. On the ten parts per million, I just wanted to quickly point out that for context, EPA is currently proposing for two PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, four parts per trillion as the safety threshold for drinking water for human health exposure. So magnitudes lower than what we're talking about in this bill. In fact, the folks in our sector are concerned that we potentially are setting the thresholds too high.

So just as part of the conversation wanted to point that out, that we're talking about a way, way, way lower in the context of the water and wastewater world. So anyway, for those reasons, we are in strong support. We're a co-sponsor, and we would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Folks who want to weigh in support.

Jennifer Williams, East Bay Municipal Utility District in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the City of Camarillo in support. Thanks.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beth Olhasso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency in support.

Good morning. Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville in support.

Amara Eger on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jason Gonsalves on behalf of the Orange County Water District in support as well. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Now, folks who want to raise concerns or opposition to the bill.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. We do have an opposed unless amended position on AB 727, and just to be clear, our members do support the goals of this bill to remove PFAS from cleaning products. Our amendments merely seek to make the bill more implementable for industry. I do want to thank the author, her staff, Elizabeth, the Committee staff, as well as the sponsors for their continued engagement, and we will continue to meet with them in earnest with the goal of finding a workable solution to the concerns I will quickly outline.

First, we are seeking a longer compliance timeline for a very specific category of products that fall within the definition of the 'polish and floor maintenance products.' These are products we're terming 'semipermanent floor finishes.' They're designed to remain on the floor for several months to years and they mitigate the wear and tear on flooring to extend the life.

So currently, despite years of research to reformulate, it is one product category that has failed to find a new alternative that works as well, but they have managed to make formulas that are optimized to use absolutely a minimal amount of the PFAS or the fluorosurfactant. So we are just looking for a little extended amount of time to implement to continue those reformulation research, and I do want to acknowledge we appreciate the author's recent amendment to extend the first effective date to 2026.

However, we are also seeking the ability to responsibly clear the supply chain in order to prevent the unnecessary wasting of products that are already within the stream of commerce when the law takes effect. This would be similar to provisions in other regulatory programs, such as the California Air Resources Board when they set new regulations on consumer products.

And lastly, this was sort of the focus of a lot of the conversation on the last bill, so I don't want to belabor it, but we do believe there's an appropriate role for a regulatory agency to play in advising the Legislature and advising the regulated community on the best available test methods and the appropriate testing limits, rather than setting limits before we can reliably test for them.

The analysis does note that there is uncertainty about the current reliability of commercial testing for concentrations as low as 10 ppm. Recognizing it also notes-- hopefully by 2028, the effective date--that that is more robust, but certainly our position would be to wait until we know that that is available.

So in closing, I'll just say again, we share the goals of the bill, and industry is certainly working to reformulate and remove these chemicals from our products and we look forward to continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Rob Spiegel, Senior Policy Director for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. I'll provide just maybe 60 seconds of additional context as well.

We've already heard through AB 246 and obviously testimony on this bill of the challenges from a 10 ppm threshold, and while CMTA members are not intentionally adding, much like my Colleague Ms. Koepke said, for this line of products as well within scope of this bill, what we have is an unknown set of criteria and understandings of what those pathways of exposure are for PFAS that are unintentionally added to a product.

Now, we believe at CMTA that the best role and the best agency to do the exploration, to do the scientific data and discovery of identifying those pathways to exposure for unintentional PFAS is DTSC and perhaps OEHHA. We know and we understand there are financial considerations with that being put into the bill, but to better inform policy decisions in the Legislature, to better inform what those pathways of exposure are in commercial products, we believe that is a worthy endeavor for the State of California and the agency to look into for CMTA members--excuse me.

When we talk about the unintentional consequences or the unintentional PFAS, we're also then expanding with it the liabilities as well, and that's the same with 246, but for the intentionally added product, the intentionally added chemical of PFAS in these products, we are not doing that.

CMTA members are not adding to it. So let's give the agencies the appropriate authorities and direction to look at these unintentional pathways of exposure and go from there. We are opposed unless amended. We definitely thank the author and sponsors for the continuing conversations and dialogue with your Committee staff, and we look forward to continuing working on this bill as it moves forward. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Yeah. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the American Chemistry Council for all the previous reasons that you heard from the opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Let's go to the phone lines to see if folks want to weigh in one way or another on AB 727.

And please press one and then zero to speak in favor or opposition to this. We'll go to line 20.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

We'll go next to line 10. They went out of queue; excuse me. We'll go to line 21.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

We'll go to line 17.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

We'll go to line 16.

Al Sattler, ZIP 90275, in support.

We'll go to line 11.

Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

And we have no further in queue at this time.

Okay, let's bring that on back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. I guess my question was on the opposition. I think they said something related to clearing the assembly line or the stock for no waste. How are conversations going and does your bill have enough time for them to get rid of all the products they have on stock?

Thank you for that question. I believe that it does because we have a delayed implementation. The issue with stating that there's going to be a regulation on when things can be manufactured is that that's hard to enforce. So you don't know when something is actually manufactured. Was it manufactured within the correct time frame versus actually going to the shelf and seeing that this product should not be there? So to say that they want it switched over to not being manufactured at a difficult time really makes it challenging for enforcement and implementation.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Other questions or thoughts? Senator Skinner.

I appreciate the author for introducing this bill. I think while I did not hear her opening comments or the main witnesses, I think we know that this is permanent. PFAS is a permanent--it is not something that goes away. So while I appreciate that industry may need time for reformulating, I mean, these should be gone now. Anyone who has--if we are thinking about the impact on our babies, our children, and the lifelong body burden of it, we want them gone now.

So I appreciate that you've already adjusted timelines. If I had to wave the magic wand, I'd have them gone now. So I wouldn't adjust it any further, and I think it's a good bill.

Thank you.

Okay. It sounds like a motion--

Which I can't make anyway.

Which you can't make. That's right. It's aspirational. So if you have any closing comments you'd like to make?

I just want to once again thank the Committee and the staff and the Chair for hearing this bill. We will continue to work with opposition and hopefully get to a place where hopefully they feel a little bit more comfortable. They may or may not ever come off of support or oppose unless amended, but I do just want to piggyback off of what Senator Skinner has said.

We have known for a very long time that PFAS is out there and that it is very harmful to our bodies and to our environment, and as a physician, I think of preventative things when you figure things out.

So technically, in my head, this is something that this industry should have been working on for a very long time and not just trying to figure it out now because there's a bill that would be regulating. When you see that something is harmful, you start figuring out how to remove it, the best testing methods, so that your products are safe and healthy for the people who will be using them and exposed to them. So this is just a little nudge to get them in that direction, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, we'll take the vote up when we have a quorum. Thank you. Let's next hear from Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer who's here to present AB 1016. Is he here? I don't think so. Yeah. Okay. Item Five: AB 1016, Jones-Sawyer.

Thank you and good morning. I'm pleased to present to you AB 1016, which authorizes the Department of Pesticide Regulations, DPR, to create a pathway for our community college systems or other institutions to prepare applications for the Aerial Pesticide Applicator examination in order to operate unmanned aerial systems, UAS, also known as drones, on California farms.

First, I want to thank the Committee staff for working closely with my office on this Bill, and I accept the Committee's amendment to provide more guidance and clarity on DPR regarding the level of expected training for this new license application pathway. By using a drone, pesticide applicators can replace antiquated backpack blower solutions that place workers in close contact with restricted materials.

Farmers can apply fewer pesticides to their farms due to the precision nature of the technology and benefit by paying for less water and aircraft fuel when they apply pesticides. In May, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, issued a decision to update its agriculture licensing requirements and stated that since it began licensing drones for agriculture pesticide applications in 2015, there have been no reported accidents or injuries among licensed agricultural drone operators during this eight year time frame.

According to the FAA, drones are lower risk than manned aircraft in a similar operation because the drone weighs much less than a manned aircraft, carries a much smaller payload, carries no flammable fuel, flies slower, and is more maneuverable than a manned aircraft. Therefore, in an accident, a drone would impact with less energy and because it is battery powered, would present no risk of the fire from fuel spillage.

In anticipation of DPR's new authority, Orange County Community College and West Hills Community College have created career pathways to train and prepare licensed applicators on drone pesticide applicator skills. These programs and more will be expected at other community colleges. Campuses will make the technology readily available to farmers as opposed to the current exclusive pathway in California to become a drone aerial applicator, which has produced only seven licenses using drones to apply pesticides.

Members, farmers simply are not able to access this important technology due to the limited opportunity to train aerial applicator license applicants in the safe use of the technology. All Californians will benefit from the decreased risk to pilots, the public, and the environment. The time has come for us to embrace this technology and bring new, sustainable tools to California agriculture. With me to provide testimony today is Al Stehly, a small farmer who also operates a pesticide applicator service business. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you sir. Good morning. I'm honored to speak to you today. My name is Al Stehly. I'm a third generation farmer from San Diego County, where I grow avocados, citrus, and wine grapes, most of which are certified organic. I'm also chair of the California Farm Bureau Rural Health and Safety Committee. I have been a licensed agricultural pesticide applicator for over 35 years and in that time, I've seen many advances in application technology that has resulted in improved efficacy and worker safety.

The UAV is relatively new technology in this country and many California farmers want the opportunity to utilize this safe and accurate machine. The obvious improvement to safety is the ability to remove the applicator from intimate contact with the spray equipment and the pesticides. The drone allows the operator to apply the materials very precisely while remaining on the edge of the treatment area. The less obvious improvement to worker safety is that for my crew, for example, a UAV would eliminate the use of mist blowers, which is a 60 pound piece of equipment that is carried on the back of the field worker.

The field worker trudges through a vineyard trying to maintain a uniform walking speed and application rate while climbing up and down hills and avoiding rocks and gopher holes. With drone spray technology, we can not only remove the worker from the application area, we are moving a heavy gas driven sprayer and chemical filled tank from their back.

Drone technology ensures uniformity of coverage. It flies and applies materials, no matter what the terrain. For these reasons, I ordered and purchased a drone, a $20,000 investment, and we have secured the three FAA licenses needed to operate it. So far, three of my employees have secured UAV pilot licenses. By far the most difficult hurdle to clear is the California Apprentice and Journeyman process currently required to obtain a pesticide license in California.

I believe this Bill gives the Department of Pesticide Regulation direction and flexibility to craft a clearer path for farmers, like me, to get licensed without compromising the safety of field workers or the public. This Bill in no way is saying that commercial drone applicators should not have to comply with safety and training. This Bill puts the responsibility for crafting and administering this training where it belongs, with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

By opening training pathways through the University or community college system, it will be easier for people like me and my employees to obtain a license. Safety is not enhanced as some have suggested, by limiting the size or scope of the UAV. Safe applications are a product of training, testing and continuing education. California is second to none in promoting and regulating safe pesticide use and this Bill will ensure that that continues. A drone used to apply chemicals or spread beneficial-

Sorry, if you could wrap up.

Oh, okay. In conclusion, I respectfully ask you to vote to approve moving this Bill forward so licensed, qualified applicators can service farms and ranches with the safe and effective technology.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member, do you have another witness?

No, that's it. Thank you.

Anyone in the room wishing to give their support?

Seeing no one else. Any lead witnesses in opposition?

Yeah. Good morning. Matthew Allen with Western Growers. Also in support.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Alan Jones. I'm the current Chairman of the CAAA, which is the California Agricultural Aircraft Association. I manage Jones Aviation and Biggs. I'm a commercial pilot with 15,000 hours of rotary wing and 35,000 hours total time. Ag aviation has been my life. I have trained numerous ag pilots over the years. These pilots I have trained come with general aviation knowledge and flying skills.

What we teach them is how to be an ag pilot or an aerial applicator. This is the value of the Apprentice and Journeyman program. Rather than just having a loader fill the hopper, point the pilot to a field and say, 'go get it'.

The apprentice pilot has a mentor who reviews various aspects of the application before the job begins, providing feedback on potential issues that can arise in how to respond, meteorology aspects to the view and review of the field map to identify sensitive sites that may need additional attention. We review the label to discuss aerial label rates, determine appropriate droplet section, nozzle selection, pump pressure.

I might share personal knowledge of a product if there has been a challenge with application or tank mixture so that the pilot can avoid these issues in the future. All of these decisions are essential to making a safe and effective application. I support the current Apprentice Journeyman process for manned and unmanned pilots. The program works and the process should be the same for those doing the same kind of work as we do.

This is why I am taking the position of opposed unless amended to AB 1016. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness in opposition.

Good morning, my name is Ryan Billing. I am a commercial pilot with over 4000 hours of flight time and 125 hours operating an unmanned helicopter making pesticide applications. I was one of the first people trained as an applicator using unmanned aircraft.

While employed at UC Davis in 2015, I was fortunate to be able to work with Dr. Ken Giles, who was conducting unmanned aerial application research using Yamaha's R-MAX helicopter. The university research covered topics of application, efficiency and efficacy as well as demonstrations of the technology to farmers and regulatory agencies. One of the challenges faced during the research was educating the Yamaha representatives on the importance of making safe and effective applications on a wide variety of crops grown in California.

A flat rice patty is a different target than an orchard full of trees. The technology for the unmanned aircraft was well developed, but there was a lack of appreciation regarding the importance of developing effective spray patterns for different agrochemicals applied to crops. When the research trials ended, I began flying the unmanned helicopter for Yamaha in the first FAA authorized commercial application business. I was chosen for this position because of my previous flying experience with the R-MAX helicopter.

You see, taking someone off the street and getting them trained is not a one day class or a few documents you can read. Safely applying pesticides from an unmanned aircraft requires training that is as detailed as many of my manned flight training events. Part of my development was to obtain a Journeyman Aerial Applicator license. Before I could test for my Journeyman card, I had to operate it as an apprentice under the supervision of an experienced journeyman for 50 hours.

Yes. For reasons I have stated, I support the Apprentice and Journeyman program for unmanned pilots and opposed unless amended to AB 1016.

The journeyman helped me recognize flight hazards in the field that I did not see and educated me on the pertinent details of aerial labels of agrochemicals.

Thank you. Last sentence?

Thank you so much. Any Me-Toos in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator if you could queue those in teleconference.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to respond, please press 1, then 0 on your keypad at this time. Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up at this time.

Thank you so much. Bringing the conversation back to the dais. I'll start off with my question. Assembly Member, what does the training look like? And I know this is an Amendment you took in consideration of the opposition, but what does that training?

So the trainings will be in development with the community college and the UC, let me say it right, the University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Division and the community college system. So they're developing, and we want to work with the pilots to ensure not only all the technology that they know about how to spray and making sure that we do the most efficient and effective way of spraying the crops but also incorporate use and demand.

It's not gotten done all the way, but we're getting pretty close to that.

Thank you. Colleagues, anything else? Okay. Seeing nothing else, we can't establish a quorum, so no motion yet. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

With that, from the former Assembly Member, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. All right, we're going to go back up.

I see an author here, Assembly Member Santiago. We're going to do file item number four. Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the Committee and their staff for their hard work on this Bill. And I'll save you the long speech and just say the short speech on this. What we're trying to do is seek to exempt projects in the City of Los Angeles that are for permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency shelters, or affordable housing.

And this is legislation that we're working on with Mayor Bass because the bottom line is when you have close to 45,000 people living on the streets and you have projects that are being delayed, in many cases for non-environmental reasons, five, six, seven years, we need to streamline it as fast as possible. Now, this Committee was generous enough a few years ago at year 19 to help us with the exemptions on permit supportive housing, emergency shelters.

Today we come back to extend that so that we can continue and finish the work, but also include affordable housing. And there's no way that we're going to be able to house our unhoused community unless we fast-track track as fast as possible getting online this much-needed housing. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote and have a witness from the mayor's office here as well.

Please proceed. You have two minutes.

But I can do the long speech if you want it.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Kevin Keller. I'm Senior Advisor on Planning and Land Use for Mayor Karen Bass and very happy to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We all know that the State of California is facing an unprecedented housing and homelessness crisis. Nowhere is this more apparent than the City and County of Los Angeles. As we've heard, the city alone represents about 10% of the state's population, but has nearly 25% of the state's unhoused population.

Mayor Karen Bass has made confronting this crisis with the urgency that it requires her top priority. On day one, Mayor Bass declared a state of emergency on homelessness in the City of Los Angeles. In the weeks that followed, Mayor Bass issued an Executive directive to streamline approvals for 100% affordable housing and temporary housing projects, launch Inside Safe, a new citywide proactive housing-led strategy to bring people inside from tents and encampments, and to maximize the use of city-owned property for temporary and permanent housing.

In the first hundred days of the Bass Administration, she has placed nearly 4000 Angelinos in housing. I'll just skip ahead. AB 785, builds off of Assembly Member Santiago's previous legislation, AB 1197, which had a direct impact on the city's successful ability to create over 2,000 shelter beds and nearly 3,000 units of supportive housing with over 6,500 additional supportive housing units in the development pipeline.

AB 785, response to the housing crisis and homelessness emergency in Los Angeles removes barriers to the construction of publicly funded affordable housing, emergency shelters, supportive housing, and transitional housing for people experiencing homelessness. In a year where additional state investments in housing and homelessness will be hard to come by, this legislation offers an opportunity to meaningfully address California's homelessness crisis. Mayor Bass wishes to thank Assemblymember Santiago for authoring this important legislation and strongly urges your Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member do you have another witness? I believe that's it. Great. Anyone looking to do MeToos in support, step forward.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, Martha Guerrero representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any MeToos in opposition? Seeing None. Moderator, can you cue the teleconference?

Yes. If you would like to speak on this issue, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go first to line 17. Go ahead.

On behalf of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, in Support

Madam Chair, we have no further lines in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. Secretary, could we establish a quorum?

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Bringing the conversation back to our colleagues. Members, Committee Members, any questions, comments? I have a motion to move. Seeing nothing else? Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Secretary could we get a? Call the roll.

Sure. AB 785. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. [Roll Call]

That calls four to zero. We'll leave that on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member. Seeing no other authors, I'll ask that any other authors in EQ to present themselves. For now, we're going to open the roll.

So I'm really sorry that I wasn't available for the first two items. And before we actually have a motion, I'd like to just make a comment on these bills. I was in the other Committee.

First of all, I just want to say I'm in support of the concept for PFAS and I voted for reducing the tax on menstrual products. I'm all for this, but I think that there still needs to be a little bit of work on the liability part. The bar is set really high when it comes to parts per million, and I think that that might be a little bit low. And I heard from the consultant here that the Chair was still willing to work on that.

So I'm going to be laying off those bills. I just want the authors to know that I do respect what they're trying to do and I want to get there. But I also want to make sure that we don't put our manufacturers in a place where they won't continue to manufacture and be able to sell their products in California due to liability. So I just wanted to make that clear. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on both of those bills. I'll be laying off those. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I know the chair mentioned a sit down with all the stakeholders right before the next Committee. With that, can I get a motion on file item number one, AB 246. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, could we get a vote count?

Sure. AB 246. Motion is due passed and rerefer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

Count Is 3-0. We're going to leave that on call, move on to file item number two, AB 727. Can I get a motion? Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, could you call the roll.

AB 727. The motion is due passed as amended. But first, amend and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

That has a three to zero vote. We're going to leave that item on call. Secretary, if we could- Well, Members, we'll do the consent calendar now. Motion by Senator Dahle, as it relates to file item number three and file number seven. Can we call the roll?

Sure. [Roll call]

That's a 4-0 vote. We'll leave the consent calendar on call and we'll take a recess for now. No, never mind. Okay. Can I get a motion to file? Moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Which one?

File item number five, AB 1016.

Thank you. AB 1016, the motion is due passed as amended. But first, amend and re refer to the Committee on Agriculture. [Roll call]

That has a four to zero vote. Currently, we're going to leave that item on call as well. And now we're going to take a recess until we get other authors.

Back from recess. We have an author we're going to listen to. File item number nine. Good morning, Assembly Member.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting AB 1716. This is a Committee Bill that would make various technical changes to the six statewide programs managed by the Certified Unified Program Agencies, or CUPAs. These programs deal with the handling and storage of hazardous materials.

The goal of the Bill is to improve the clarity of the law for both the regulators and the regulated community. We have been working with various stakeholders and will likely be continuing those very technical discussions as the Bill moves to process. With that, I'd like to introduce my primary support witness here in the room. I have Justin Malone with the California Environmental Health Directors on behalf of the CUPAs.

Thank you so much. Sir, you have two minutes. Go ahead.

Madam Chair, Members, Justin Malone, on behalf of the local environmental health administrators to be sponsoring the legislation. First of all, thank you so much to the Chair and your staff for carrying the Bill for us. It's a pain in the neck sometimes to have these technical bills because we have to have them. Our CUPA program is entirely established under statute, so when we tweak the program, we have to come back to you to make these technical amendments.

But they largely intended, as the author said, to be technical amendments to improve the program for both the regulated community and the regulators. Some relatively minor changes, one significant change. And we have been working very closely with all the stakeholders. We've addressed the Department of Defense issues. We're working with CEEEB, the Council for Economic, Environmental and Economic Balance. We believe we've got perhaps one or two minor tweaks after this.

But the Bill is going to improve our program in several ways, including to ensure that people that apply for a permit pay for their permit. This is 100% fee supported program. It's actually unfair and it's unconstitutional for us to charge other people for services we provide. So there are a couple of technical amendments like that.

Again, I want to thank you and your staff for working with us, and we will ensure that if there are any further amendments, we'll bring them back to the Committee for you to review before we head it off to the Governor. So thanks again to the author and to your staff for helping us. Thank you.

Okay, other folks who want to wait in support of the Bill. Any opposition? Opposition folks who want to raise concerns? All right, let's go to the phone lines. Anyone who wants to weigh in on AB 1716.

To make a comment, please press 1, then 0 at this time. We have no lines queuing up at this time.

Okay, let's bring it back to the Committee. Any thoughts, questions? Yes, Mr. Vice Chair.

First off, I want to say thanks for bringing the Bill forward. I am in full support of CUPAs. It's something that when I was a county supervisor, it was very helpful to the business community. I just have one question.

So there is a penalty of up to $5,000 per day, and I wanted to know where that penalty would go to. Is it going to actually help back in the program or where does the money go?

I'm going to defer the answer to my sponsor.

Right. Senator, penalties have always gone either shared in certain parts of the program, shared with DTSC or the state.

But in this case, it'll be the local jurisdictions get it back and those penalties can go to SEPs, which are Supplemental Environmental Programs. And in lieu of a fine, we can actually get those penalties to help that business come into compliance. So those funds are kept in our program. They don't go into General funds of local government.

Well, I thank you for that. So just a little bit of a follow up because I know that especially in the very rural parts of the state where counties don't have, they maybe have one health officer to cover literally thousands of square miles and very small businesses that are very critical to those communities if they're not there. For example, in the town where I get my mail, the town of Bieber, we have one service station that is able to fix your car and change your tire.

And if he's not there, we have literally 30, 40 miles to go to try to figure out how to get those services. And the CUPA program sometimes has been somewhat heavy handed where they came in them. The fines were more than what it would cost to actually fix the problem, and the business had a difficult time even fixing the problem.

So I just want to make sure that the resources go- our common sense approach to it- so that we actually get the environmental benefit that we are looking for. At the same time, not putting those very extreme cases where they, it's not too heavy handed is my point I'm trying to bring across here.

Absolutely, and may I add there's a Bill running through the Legislature dealing with that very issue where we can actually lower the category of fines and penalties and have our county councils deal with it instead of the DA's office. So we're very, very cognizant of this issue. We have been working for years, ever since the advent of the CUPA program, to ensure the money stays in our program because they're entirely fee supported. So we're with you if you have any suggestions.

This is an ongoing process of improving this program. We'd be happy to carry a Bill for you next year, Senator.

Well, I appreciate your witness. We have a long relationship when it comes to this area. So I will be supporting your Bill today. I just want to make sure that I know that not every Legislator has the same issues that we have in those very rural areas. And we need those services.

We need those folks to be able to stay in business to provide for the communities that we represent.

We appreciate that input. Any other questions, comments, thoughts from the Committee? So moved by Senator Menjivar. If you'd like to close.

I appreciate, Senator Dahle, your input and your feedback, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Okay, Secretary, please call roll.

AB 1716. The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Hurtado, aye. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye.

Okay, that's six, zero. So we will hold that open for Senator Nguyen is coming. Okay. All right, thank you. All right, if Senator Muratsuchi can make his way here, that would be great. AB 1216. And why don't we lift the call on several of the bills so that we can add on? Let's start with item one. This is Assemblymember Papan's bill, AB 246.

AB 246. The current vote is three, zero. Allen. Aye. Allen. aye. Dahle. Hurtado. Nguyen.

Okay, we'll go on next to item two. This is AB 727, Weber.

The motion is do pass as amended, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Nguyen.

All right, let's go to the consent calendar. Consent calendar. Two items on the consent calendar, AB 777 and AB 1307.

Consent calendar. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Nguyen.

All right, that's six to zero. We'll leave that open for Janet. Item four, this is item four, AB 785.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Nguyen.

That's six to zero. Let's go to item five, AB 1016, Jones-Sawyer.

The motion is do pass as amended, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Agriculture. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado. Nguyen.

That's five to zero. We'll leave that open for Senator Nguyen. Let's now go to. Okay, we're waiting for Al Muratsuchi and Assemblymember Alvarez. I will text both of them. We'll briefly recess. So Muratsuchi, is he in committee? All right, why don't we lift the call for Assemblymember Nguyen, sorry, Senator Nguyen to come even back and forth so that Senator Nguyen can add on to the bills. Let's start with item one.

AB 246. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary with the chair voting aye. Dahle. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Nguyen.

Okay, so that's five to zero. We will close the roll on item five. So Hurtado was an aye? Okay, so we'll close the roll on item number one. That's AB 246. Now let's go to AB 727, Weber.

The motion is do pass as amended, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary with the chair voting aye. Dahle. Nguyen.

Okay, that is a five to zero to zero. Sorry, five to zero vote with two abstentions. We'll close the roll on AB 727. Consent calendar.

Consent calendar is Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen, Aye.

Okay, that's seven zero. We'll close consent calendar. Now let's go to AB 785 at Santiago.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing with the chair voting aye. Vice chair voting aye. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen, aye.

That's seven to zero. We'll close the roll on that. AB 1016, Jones-Sawyer.

The motion is do pass as amended, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Agriculture. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting aye. Hurtado. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen, aye.

Okay, we'll close the roll at six to zero. Let's now go to item number nine, AB 1716.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting aye. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen, aye.

Okay, great. That's seven zero. We'll close a roll on that. Alvarez says he's on his way.

I could potentially present 1216, which is. All right we're going to take a brief reassess. Great. All right, let's come back into session. We have a Senate Member, Al Muratsuchi here to present AB 1216. In your agendas that's item number six. You may proceed when ready. Nice to see you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your patience. Senators, I am here to present Assembly Bill 1216, a district bill that would require one wastewater treatment plant, Hyperion, in the City of Los Angeles to install a fence line monitoring system to track emissions of hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds.

We saw just a couple of months ago that the State Water Board Accused Hyperion of gross negligence and proposed a record $21.7 million penalty for a massive sewage spill in July of 2021 that led to noxious emissions that persist almost two years after this accident in July of 2021. Over the last two years, neighboring residents, especially in the City of El Segundo, have filed thousands of complaints about chemical odors, nausea, inexplicable rashes.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has recommended a fence like monitoring system to protect the health and safety of surrounding residents. The bottom line, Senators, is local residents, including our constituents, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. Our constituents in the City of El Segundo deserve to know that the air that they are breathing is safe. I am here with two supporting witnesses from the City of El Segundo. We have City Councilman Ryan Baldino and also a witness from the Sierra Club.

Council Member, nice to see you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members, for allowing me to testify about this Bill. And thank you, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, for taking the charge on this. Our community has been suffering for two years since the catastrophic accident at Hyperion. Our community members still complain about headaches and nauseas and foul odors. The actual numbers are AQMD has issued 75 notices of violation. There have been 5,680 odor complaints. And the way you get a notice of violation is a resident has to call AQMD.

They have to travel out to that resident's home, confirm that smell exists, that homeowner has to be there to then confirm with the inspector that that is the odor. This can take 45 minutes in Los Angeles with traffic, it's very hard to document. That has to be done six times for one notice of violation. LA County Department of Health has already said that fence line monitoring is a reasonable solution to monitor what is being emitted from this plant and being pushed into El Segundo.

And it doesn't stop there. That ocean breeze is always blowing. This is going into our neighboring communities of Hawthorne, Inglewood, Gardenia, all over the South Bay. We are currently working with AQMD to modify this language to what is acceptable to them. And we are forever grateful for the good work they have done in issuing the notices of abatement, holding public hearings. Their last hearing was last night. We are here to ask for your help. We have done everything we can do as a city.

We've declared a state of emergency. We have authorized to file a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles to fix this problem. But now we're here asking for your help. As a newly elected Council Member, one of my great honors was attending the High School Student Council Forum, and one of the questions our student asked was, "Is our air safe to breathe?" And I can't answer that. I don't think anyone can right now.

So in closing and asking for your support of this important Bill to protect the safety of our community, I will just call out what is said in your analysis, that this Bill is not the end-all, be-all solution to El Segundo's air quality woes, but it may be one small piece in helping the affected community better understand what they are breathing. And so, again, I respectfully ask for your support and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Council Member. Other folks who want to weigh in support AB 1216.

Good morning chair and Members, and thank you, Assembly Member, for your leadership on this. My name is Aaron Woolley, speaking today on behalf of Sierra Club California and our half-a-million Members and supporters statewide in support of AB 1216. Wastewater treatment plants contribute to air pollution that directly impacts neighboring residents. Pollutants of concern include hydrogen sulfide, nitrous oxides, and volatile organic compounds, which are associated with various adverse health effects and environmental concerns.

They cause acid rain, contribute to nutrient pollution in coastal waters, and react to form ground-level ozone. Even at low levels, these pollutants cause noxious odors, headaches, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation, and other public health concerns which increase with concentration and additional frequency of exposure. Short-term exposure to nitrous oxides, for example, can result in coughing. Difficulty breathing, aggravate asthma, and long-term exposure can actually cause asthma over the long term. Similar effects may be experienced due to exposure to hydrogen sulfide and VOCs.

Sensitive receptors, including children, are particularly at risk. At the same level of exposure as adults, they can experience much more severe health consequences. Increasing fence line monitoring of these wastewater treatment-related emissions, as provided in AB 1216, will help empower local residents through public access to real-time data and keep them informed of the public exposure and the associated risks of these emissions.

Moreover, this additional data will allow the Air Quality Management District to be better informed and proceed with appropriate measures to address and reduce the harmful emissions and protect public health of this community. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other folks who want to express support for the Bill? Okay. People want to express opposition? Concerns?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, regrettably opposed to the Bill. Certainly sensitive to the community concerns on this one. But we are very concerned about the precedent that this would set with the Legislature imposing this fence line monitoring requirement on a facility. I do understand that there are some productive conversations underway, thanks in part to your leadership and yours too, Mr. Muratsuchi.

And we are hopeful that that will come to a reasonable resolution that will be able to get us off of the Bill and remove our concerns. So we'll look forward to continuing that conversation with the stakeholders as the Bill moves forward.

Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? All right, let's go to the phone lines, folks who want to weigh in on AB 1216.

And to weigh in, please press one, then zero on your keypad at this time. Mr. Chairman, we have no one queuing up at this time.

Okay, we'll bring the item to the Committee. Let me first. Okay, go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Senator Gonzalez will move the Bill when appropriate. First of all, thank you for your leadership.

Obviously, this is something that is of real interest to our constituents. And as you mentioned, folks, as we mentioned by the Council Member, folks from neighboring districts as well, because of the way that the sea breezes work and what happened in Hyperion was really awful, and it's created a lot of concerns. There have been very productive conversations, I know, happening.

I know the City of El Segundo has been discussing with AQMD, and they're going to be in conversation with the City of Los Angeles as we try to figure out a good place to land this. But I'm feeling good about everything. I'm hearing about the level of discourse that's happening to ensure that the core goals of the city and the author's office are being met to make sure that we're getting a handle on what's really been an awful situation for the folks living around the plant.

So with that, I'm certainly happy to support the Bill today very much. And if others have questions or concerns or things they want to raise. And I do want to thank the folks from both City of El Segundo at KMD and City of Los Angeles, LA Sanitation, for the conversations that are currently underway. And it's my hopes that we'll get to a place where everyone's actually.

We'll actually be moving the ball forward on monitoring beyond where it is today in a significant way, but do so in a way that is going to address the concerns that the City of Los Angeles has. So great. If you want to close, I'm certainly very pleased to support the Bill today.

Thank you. I just want to join you, Mr. Chairman, in acknowledging the concerns being raised by the opposition. And, Mike, I want to express, on the record, my full commitment to try to resolve any differences. So the bottom line is that we protect the residents of surrounding communities, most particularly, in this case, the City of El Segundo, and so respectfully ask for a Aye vote.

Great. All right, items removed by Senator Gonzalez, Secretary please call the roll.

EB 1216. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that open for Senators Dahle and Skinner. Thank you. Thank you, Al. Thank you, Assembly Member. All right, let's ask Senator Alvarez to come up and present his Bill, which is AB 1449. That's item eight on your agendas. Item Eight. That's Senator Alvarez. Thanks so much. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1449 for you here today. AB 1449 is an important Bill that, until the year 2033, would provide an exemption from the sequel process for 100% affordable housing projects that meet location requirements, rigorous labor standards, and specific environmental requirements.

As you all know too well, we are in the midst of a housing crisis which not only renders a state unaffordable to a large number of Low and middle class individuals, but also costs the state billions of dollars in economic output annually. All of the studies and data tell us that we need to build millions of new homes over the next few years much quicker than we do now to get out of the hole that we have found ourselves in.

Despite good intentions, Sequoia has played a contributing role in this crisis by inhibiting developers ability to build affordable housing projects in a cost effective way. A report by a business roundtable, for example, found that in 2020, nearly 50% of all housing production that year was challenged under CEQA. The lengthy and expensive sequel process and the ease with which someone can abuse it needlessly increases the cost and the length of housing projects, often resulting in projects becoming either cost prohibitive or never actually happening.

Recognizing the housing crisis we are in, which is a real life or death with real life or death consequences, AB 1449 seeks to remove barriers to building affordable housing while requiring robust location, environmental and labor standards again until 2033. I appreciate your time. Obviously can provide more information about the specifics, but here we have with us someone who'd like to testify as a witness, Vice President of Governor affairs for the California Housing Consortium and also Matt Baker, policy Director for Planning and Conservation League. Marina will start first.

Thank you chair and Members Marina Wyatt with the California Housing Consortium and a proud co sponsor of AB 1449. Current law provides numerous protections for proposed affordable and supportive housing developments seeking local approval, including many buy right and CEQA exemptions for certain affordable housing projects. Unfortunately, the existing tools have many limitations and prevent access to CEQA streamlining for many projects, particularly those in rural and high resource communities.

Additionally, for those developments that may be exempt from CEQA as either a use by right or through other existing CEQA exemption, actions such as funding and planning decisions taken by the local agency to Fund these projects are still being challenged under SQA and cause undue delay. AB 1449 would exempt several actions taken by local agencies in furtherance of 100% affordable housing, including project approvals, 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 decision. 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, and I'm happy to answer any question and urge your support today, Mr. Baker.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League it is exceptional that I stand here on behalf of PCL in support of a sequoia exemption. That doesn't happen very often. It might be the very first time that PCL has formally supported a buy rate sequoia exemption for housing, but we are supporting this one. We don't believe that sequoia is a primary obstruction to housing construction in California.

We think it's one of the many, many hurdles that development has to go through that makes housing difficult in the state. But we also normally think that it's a very important hurdle that shouldn't be sidestepped. But for affordable housing that's designed to the policy is designed to put it in exactly the places that we need it most, to give people access to opportunity and to have just the right environmental safeguards in place.

That kind of policy want to get behind and remove as many hurdles as possible for these affordable housing projects. This Bill has those safeguards. It has the rigorous criterion scrutiny required for a TCAT qualification, including robust siding criteria that make sure that housing is near jobs and amenities. It has further overarching Location efficiency criteria prescribed in the statute. It has the exclusion of the long list of environmentally sensitive lands that has become a standard since SB 35.

And it has our preferred language for identifying and remediating hazardous sites to make sure that we're not putting housing on unsafe places. These criteria will ensure that the environmental harm is minimized, if not negated, and will ensure that the affordable housing that we are incentivizing will help us achieve our climate goals by reducing the need for driving, improve public health outcomes by reducing pollution, will conserve natural and working lanes, and will provide more equitable access to job services and opportunity. This is a policy that we can support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, other folks who want to wait in support,

Mark Stivers with the. California Housing Partnership and strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, opposition or anyone want to raise concerns about the Bill? Okay. Seeing none, let's go to the phone lines. Anyone who wants to raise concerns or voice support for AB 1449.

Thank you. Chris Martin. On behalf of Housing California co sponsor and strong support.

To voice support, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time. We'll first go to line 16. Go ahead, please. Line 16, your line is open. Go ahead.

Once again, line 16, please check your mute feature on your phone. Hearing nothing, we will move on to line 17. Go ahead.

Martin Radasovich, on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Line 22.

On behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. We have no further lines in queue.

Okay. Items before the Committee questions, concerns, thoughts? Okay. Senator Hurtado moves it. When appropriate, we'll let you close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Committee Members, as was presented by the testimony of witnesses, we've tried really hard to make sure we have a Bill that is before you that meets strong environmental concerns but also meets the moment of needing to move forward with affordable housing developments throughout our communities in the State of California. That's why we built this coalition, and I'm really, really proud of that. And I'll also take the privilege to say I'm proud that my wife and my kids are actually in the audience today.

They're visiting for the first time since I was sworn in. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak in front of them and in front of you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, let's call a roll.

AB 1449. The motion is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. Senators Allen, Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez, Aye. Hurtado, Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Nguyen. Skinner, aye.

Okay, we'll close the roll. I think Nguyen has come out against sequel exemption, so she doesn't want to vote on this. Okay, let's the call on the other bills. All right. Okay, so I think the last Bill, actually just the Garcia Bill, right? 1216.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you so much. Item six.

File. Item six, AB 1216. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 4-1. Dahle, no. Skinner, aye.

All right, we'll close the roll on that. That's five to two. And there we go. Excellent. I think that's it. Did I already vote on AB 1716? Yes, we have your vote. All right, so I think that's everything. Yeah. Okay with that, we will adjourn this meeting.