Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 161-8051. And also, let me just say, on behalf of our incredible court reporter, I want to ask all the speakers, including my colleagues and witnesses alike, to speak slowly and clearly and don't speak over each other. And if I stop you and remind you, it's just so that we can ensure that the court reporter Ina gets your testimony appropriate and clear. Before we begin the agenda today, we need to establish a quorum.

So to my colleagues, Members, you will need to turn on your microphone for the roll call. And every time that we vote, vote. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird, Laird here. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas here. Grove, Grove here. Atkins, Atkins here.

Thank you so much. And I know that Ochoa Bogh is on her way and should be here shortly. I should say Senator Ochoa Bogh is on her way and will be here shortly. So we're going to try to dispense with some items. And based on what I have understood from the consultant and staff, I'm going to recommend this motion starting with item number two. Governor's appointees not required to appear. As a first motion, I would entertain item two, D,F,G,H, and L. Okay, thank you.

Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. Grove, Grove Aye. Atkins, Atkins Aye.

And we will put that on call. I would now entertain a motion for item 2, E,I,J, and K I would so move. Thank you, Senator Laird. Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. Grove, Grove not voting. Atkins, Atkins Aye.On call.

We will put that on call. Colleagues, I would entertain a motion on item 3, and that is Bill referrals. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. Grove, Grove Aye. Atkins, Atkins Aye. Ochoa Bogue. Bill referrals.

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you very much. We have floor acknowledgments. And let me recommend the motion on that. I would ask for a motion on item 4,6,7,8, and nine. And these are floor acknowledgments. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary. Oh, I missed 10, Madam Vice Chair. I'm including 10. So it's 4,6,7,8,9, and 10. So moved. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for that catch. Will you please call the roll?

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. Grove, Grove not voting. Atkins, Atkins Aye Five to zero.

Five to zero. I would go back and ask for a motion on floor acknowledgments for item 5. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, we please call the roll.

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Not voting. Grove, Grove not voting. Atkins, Atkins Aye. 4 to 0

4 to 0 and Senator Ochao Bogh, if I can, I'm going to go back and open the roll. And on a couple of items, I let people know you were on your way. Item 2 governor's appointees not required to appear. We had 2 motions, and the first motion was for item two, DFgH and L. We split some motions. So 2 D,F,G, H and L was the first. Madam Secretary, will you open the roll?

Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye.

So that's five to zero. Okay. And the second motion that we have on call, Senator, is item two, E-I-J and K. Madam Secretary, open the roll.

Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa Bogh Not voting.

Okay, thank you. So I think that concludes all that we need to do before we bring up our first conference. And that would be Mr. Gideon Kravcove. And I hope you're going to correct me if I said that wrong, who is a Member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Welcome. Please come on up. And as you come up and get situated, I'm glad to see you brought your water with you. We need to hydrate, especially today.

I'm going to invite you to introduce yourself, acknowledge or thank anyone that you would like to make some opening comments, and then we will go right to Members of the committee for comments and questions. So with that, let me say welcome and thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Chair Atkins, vice Chair, Grove. Members of the Rules Committee, it's an honor to appear before you this second time as a nominee for the South Coast Air Quality Management District governing board. I want to thank Governor Newsom for trusting me with this renomination and my family and wife Misty for all the support that makes it possible to pursue public service.

Everything we do at the district is focused on our mission to clean the air and protect the health of all residents in the South Coast Air District through practical and innovative strategies. So achieving compliance with our federal ambient air quality standards, particularly the federal ozone standards for extreme non attainment areas, is a key responsibility for us at the South Coast Governing Board. Mobile sources trucks, ships, locomotives and cars make up a large majority of our ozone sources.

We're investing extensive incentive, funding and staff resources in cleaner zero emission technologies. And perhaps the best way that we can achieve the needed reductions is through incentive programs that turn over the existing fleets to the cleanest available models with a focus on equity and the many different constituencies all throughout our four county air district region. Another priority is reduction of toxic air contaminants. We've had success in this area, but more progress is needed.

This work relates to AB 617, which is designed to achieve local emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities. Our district currently has six AB 617 communities, including San Bernardino, Muscoi, Senator Ochila Bogue and also in South Los Angeles in your district, Senator Smallwood Cuevas. As a Member of the board, I bring a diverse experience and perspective. I've had a 30 year career as an environmental lawyer and mediator. I've worked within government, industry, labor, the environmental and the environmental justice sectors.

I value collegiality with fellow board Members and staff and build relationships with stakeholders based on trust and accountability. It's important to be an active listener and understand the interests of other board Members with an open mind to show up, study hard and mold consensus on the difficult issues that we face. So to conclude, Chair Atkins, Vice Chair Grove, Members of the committee, I'm ready to continue this work and if confirmed, look forward to partnering with you and look forward to your questions today.

Thank you very much. Let me turn to my left and start with you, Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. And thank you for your willingness to serve. And I should say that you and I worked together when you were on the Mining and Geology Board and that was when it was a particularly crisis time and needed reform and there were some problems. And so you seem to be a glutton for punishment in going to wherever there are difficult issues. So I thank you for your service.

I think the thing I wanted to do, and it's one global question is that the board sort of has these two priorities. It is really to clean up or deal with the air quality in one of the most challenging air quality basins in the United States and at the same time deal with greenhouse gas emissions. And sometimes they compete, sometimes there's different federal regulations and state regulations. I'm not sure the sound system is turned up here, Madam Chair, just for the record.

I think there's a sound system issue. So the question is, how do you deal with these competing concerns? How do you make sure that you move one, you move the other? You're not moving out of federal compliance while you're trying to meet the state things that maybe occasionally it's even at war between lowering the greenhouse gas emissions and air quality. How do you, from where you sit, try to mediate between all those different challenges?

Thank you, Senator Laird. As I think you all know, I also sit as the governor's appointee and the representative from the South Coast to the Air Resources Board. So the way that I explain it is that the South Coast has responsibility for sort of the smokestack stationary sources and compliance with the Federal Ambient standards which is going to be particulate matter, ozone, lead, things like that. And then we also have the air toxics work.

CARB has the mobile sources, the tailpipe sources and also the climate work. For the most part, CARB is handling the climate issues, Senator and the South Coast is sort of trying to stay in its lane on the Federal Ambient standards. And the air toxics work. I will say, for the most part, I think those are aligned. When we invest in zero emission technologies we help both achieve our federal standards and also our climate change work occasionally.

There have been some things kind of before I was at CARB but cap and trade and some other things where you see that maybe the climate policies need to have better alignment with the fence line communities, the toxic issues. So that's stuff I'm paying attention to at CARB didn't totally bone up on CARB today for this hearing. But we're going to be seeing, Senator, the Low carbon fuel standard cap and trade AB 905 which is the carbon capture and sequestration.

We're going to try to incorporate the equity concerns, the fence line concerns into that work. Part of my job wearing the hats at both agencies is to try to get the best alignment. There in General is a good relationship with the agencies. Our work on cars, trucks, locomotives is going to help us meet our climate goals and also help us meet our attainment goals.

Thank you. I think that was a comprehensive answer and it's one of the reasons why I think you're well suited for this and I look forward to supporting you. Thank you very much.

And if not, there's always the Mining Board.

Boy, you're going to need therapy if you have to go back there.

You really don't want to get him started. Thank you very much. Thank you. Senator Laird, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, madam Pro Temp. Thank you. We usually have a caucus on Tuesdays and we send out the questions or who people that are going to appear before us. And I did have a question from one of my colleagues. I particularly didn't have questions for you but one of my colleagues who represents that area down there and is concerned or has the understanding where you have the dual role on the CARB board as well.

The concern that she has is that CARB's harbor craft regulation is threatening to close down the iconic century old. This is very important to her historic balboa island ferry due to its impracticality of installing mandated electric engines and these shallow old ferry boats. The ferry surf school children, lifeguard trainees, and countless residents and tourists who would otherwise have to drive 12 miles to get to and from the same destination as the AQMD's representative on CARB.

Can you assure this legislative representative that you'll work to save this essential service? That was the question she asked.

The answer to that is yes. I grew up in New York City in the 1970s, Senator, and moved with my mother to Southern California when I was 10 and became a Californian. And we moved from New York City to this beautiful little seaside community in Orange County, Corona del Mar. And we took that ferry boat there in Balboa Island. They serve little chocolate covered bananas that's like the shtick down there. I'll never forget that. That ferry has some compliance obligations.

We're aware of the situation at CARB. It's sort of, honestly, an all hands on deck situation with CARB. There's incentive dollars in part that come from the South Coast through the Carl Moyer program. The Legislature put $60 million into the Harbor Craft program. We're going to do everything we can to help them get the technical assistance to access the dollars, the incentive programs, and there's also some degree of extensions that are available. So I'm aware of that situation.

It's in my district, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that their ferries get upgraded to clean standards and that they can continue to inspire the next generation of folks visiting our state.

Thank you. Like I said, you're very much south of me. You do serve on the California Resource Support in that position, and that was an important question for Assembly Member Dixon, so thank you for answering that question.

Of course, Senator.

Thank you for representing the Assembly on the Senate Rules Committee, as I was, you know anyway, Senator Achoa Bogue.

It's. A pleasure to see you today. And let me just begin by stating that I truly appreciated your remarks and your opening remarks with regards to the importance of having collaboration and working, building relationships and being a good listener. I believe that I hope I'm emulating those characteristics while in the Senate, and I really appreciate it. And the feedback that I received from your colleagues were just commendable in the work that you're doing. So I'm very, very excited.

It means a lot. Thank you so much.

And it did. You are very well liked by many, many representatives in my district, and so I took that to heart.

Can we just end the hearing here with that?

I say that because I do want to validate the efforts that you put forth in your role. So thank you.

So I'm going to go and sort of revisit the question that we discussed when we met with regards to the South Coast AQMD in what is to be the multi year process to update the employer mitigation requirements for the VMT of their employees, commute and many residents of the Inland Empire who live there because of the affordability and how they would be impacted by commuting to LA and Orange County for work.

And that's one of the greatest concerns that I do have because, as you know, the Inland Empire is the fastest growing region in California and in the United States as we because of the affordability. But that also could potentially be nullified by the fact that many of our working class families will be impacted by the vehicle miles traveled.

So just wanted to give you an opportunity to discuss some of the ideas on how we could mitigate to ensure that we're not disincentivizing employers to hire and keep their employees within the area and also ensuring that our families in the Inland Empire have employment to provide for their families.

Thank you. And I enjoyed spending some time with you and appreciated you taking the time to meet with me. So this is a rule that came to our board last, maybe it was a week or two ago and we're updating a prior rule that's trying to incentivize carpools and reduce employee commutes. Things are a little bit in flux now with COVID and unsure how many folks are coming into the office and what the effect of our rules are.

So we're trying to sort of gather data and see in this new era how people are getting to work and what the office place of the 2020s looks like. And then we're going to come back after we collect that data and see what we can do to try to incentivize carpooling and things of that sort. As we discussed, one of the neat things about South Coast AQMD is the diversity of perspectives that we have on the board.

When we had that rule come before us, supervisor Hagman from San Bernardino spoke about it and iterated the concerns that you have and it's great to have people on the board like him to have different perspectives, folks that represent different areas. And one of the things that we've been able to do generally at the South Coast is try to arrive at bipartisan solutions that take into account the strong opinions of the board Members. So I'm aware of this concern.

Supervisor Hagman sits right next to me on the dais. He is concerned that commuting is a part of life for many of the folks in San Bernardino and Riverside. I know you're trying to make that less so through economic development in the areas and that's of course a priority for him.

But I can assure you that after we're done collecting the data, we're going to do our best to come to a consensus that takes into account the opinions of Supervisor Hagman and the other folks on the board from your area and do something that is smart and doesn't penalize the employers or the residents of your district.

Thank you. I truly appreciate having that on record on that end. But I think there's one last question that we did not address during our interview, but I think you might have an inclination as to not concern, but just the issue that we need to address with regards to warehouses. Could you give us an update on the phase in to the District's Warehouse Indirect Source Rule program and where we are on that issue? As you know, the Inland Empire, we have great number of warehouses and so we'd give you an opportunity to discuss that.

Thank you, Senator. So as I noted in my opening remarks, when it comes to the air quality attainment and the toxic issues that we're addressing in the South Coast, the goods movement sector is a really big challenge for us. It's less so the smokestack and the stationary sources that the South Coast typically regulates.

We have the tightest rules in the world probably for the stationary sources, but it's the mobile sources, the stuff that CARB is working on, and even the federal government, the ships, the trucks, the locomotives that are really affecting not only our regional air quality, but also some of the fence line communities. The indirect source rule for warehouses is a program that a rule that requires the warehouses to invest in cleaner technologies. There's a lot of flexibility.

There's a menu of 20 different things that they can pick from depending on how many sort of diesel truck trips they get. And the more diesel truck trips they get, the more they have to invest in these cleaner technologies. So that was the rule.

The way that I see it is that if we can in a practical way, in a reasonable way, clean up the goods movement sector, clean up the trucks, clean up the ships, clean up the locomotives, it's going to put our economy in Southern California on such a better foundation for the future.

If we can have Clean Air locomotives, Clean Air trucks running through the 210, the ten, the 60 going through our neighborhoods to the warehouses, so we're not as concerned about what's coming out of the tailpipe, we're going to have a fantastic foundation as a Pacific Rim economy for the future. So I support trying to clean up that sector in a reasonable way. The warehouses is part of it. What CARB is doing in all the different areas is part of it.

We're now looking at rail yards and ports, which is an extremely difficult challenge. So that's sort of how I approach the issue. This rule was passed a couple of years ago. It's in litigation right now. But we are implementing the rule and I'll give you an update on what we're hearing. So the first thing is that we've had about 60% of the warehouses. It's for warehouses over 100,000 sqft. About 60% are participating in the program. We've got to get the word out and get better outreach.

And so we need to get that number up to 100%. So all the warehouses are aware of the program and participating. So we're having a little bit of a challenge in getting the word out. That's the first thing. The second thing is that for those that are part of the program, so far, the compliance has been excellent. The number one menu item that folks have selected has been the zero emission yard trucks. So forklifts, what are called yard goats that move containers around.

Almost 50% of the folks have invested in zero emission technology there as part of their compliance mechanism. 30% have invested in basically Low NOx or natural gas trucks, which we do support in the rural Senator. And only 4% of the total compliance has been with the mitigation fee. And that was sort of the original concern that folks are just going to pay this fee, it's sort of a high fee and that we're not actually going to clean the air. But in fact, we've seen a lot.

Of zero emission yard equipment and cargo handling equipment in the natural gas trucks. And folks have actually been on site investing in your communities, cleaning things up, instead of writing South Coast a check, which I think we wanted to see how that's working out. So I think the early indications are that the rule is doing okay on an average basis. Those menu items also are cheaper than the mitigation fee, so it's less of a hit to the pocketbooks of the warehouse.

Senator, this was, again, a rule that was required in our federal state implementation plan. It was passed on a bipartisan basis. Carlos Rodriguez, who I know that you know, sits on the committee and he's eyeballing compliance with every quarter when we get the reports. He's trying to help get out the word to industry. So I think it's a long answer.

The initial feedback is that the rule is helping to clean the air in your communities in a way that is cost effective, but it's still a work in progress, and I'd be happy to keep your office up to speed on how it's going. It's a five year phase in, Senator.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator. Smallwood Cuevos.

Thank you. Can you all hear me? Okay? Here we go.

Thank you. And thank you so much for being here with us. And it was a pleasure meeting you and chatting with you. What was clear is your passion and expertise and commitment to this area of work and really your unique position of being both part of the Air Quality Board and also with CARB and bringing that nexus together learned a lot in our conversation. My questions, and you mentioned this in your opening statement.

I want to also add, like the Senator from Inland Empire, I also received a lot of calls out of my district and emails just really touting your commitment to this work and the stellar job that you've been doing in your capacity with the board. You mentioned in your comments the 617 communities, and that's something that's very important to many of the constituents and organizations that represent them.

In my district, obviously, as you mentioned, we are making progress around attainment and addressing emissions, but we still have a long way to go. And even though we have a fairly large area that has been designated an AB 617 community, we often look at how are ways that we can include more. And so my question has to do, and we talked a little bit about this how is that engagement moving forward with 617 communities and even those who haven't necessarily been designated?

But what are the ways in which we are ensuring that those that are within that designation and those that are in surrounding communities are getting the support that they need?

Thank you, Senator. It was nice to meet you as well. So, as I mentioned, South Coast has six of these communities, sort of 4 in sort of the LA County area, and then the 1 in San Bernardino and then 1 out in Eastern Coachella in Riverside County. This is very resource intensive work. I know each year the Legislature is asked to continue to Fund the work. It does not have a dedicated source of funding, and that's just the South Coast.

I think there's ten or more of these communities all throughout the state that CARB overseas. So this is another thing where it's sort of both hats. As we discussed, given the resource constraints and the amount of time and energy and resources that's required to make the program successful, CARB is sort of reevaluating the program. It's called the Blueprint Update that's going to be at the CARB Board, I think, on September 24.

It's been sort of a two year long process to re envision AB 617 to see how and there are several communities also in San Joaquin and down in Arvin and Shafter Senator but how with the resource constraints that we have, we can make the program better, make it more efficient, and also how we can take some of the lessons learned and expand that to other parts of the state.

Right now, the South Coast is not approving more communities because we don't have the resources to do it. So I encourage everybody to look at that CARB. Blueprint process. It's a very detailed process and there's going to be a lot of information for you and your staffs on where 617 is and what direction it might go. Turning to the South Los Angeles community, which is one of the newer 617 communities, they're just starting to implement their community emission reduction plan, which is a ten year plan.

It's a real cool effort down there. We have three coleads from the community, as we discussed, Senator from Scope, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Watts. Clean action. So our staff is working and taking sort of direction from the community about what their priorities are.

We are doing something new for our district called Participatory Budgeting, where the budgets and I think the ten or $15 million of incentive money, the community sort of gets to decide how that's being done and spent, which is a totally different model than normal at the districts. There's good relationships and we're doing the work. For me, there are certain rules and certain priorities that the community has identified. In South LA. It was oil and gas notification in that community.

There's a lot of oil and gas wells that are like literally right next door to folks homes. Forget about a half mile buffer. I mean, you're talking 10ft so notification of certain drilling and acidification efforts. So we passed the most aggressive notification rule probably in the world, which we're proud of. Again on a bipartisan way. We had a rule for metal crushing. I think, as you know, at Jordan High School, there is a metal crushing operation and there's metal particles flying into the outfield.

So we just passed a rule there trying to expand our authority. We're looking at incentive funding for dry cleaners in that area. So the work is just starting. There's also lots of community monitoring going on. So it's a work in progress. We're going to try to meet our commitments, working with the community in South Los Angeles and then also, I think, at CARB trying to figure out how this program can be all that it can be.

And we're going to learn more when this blueprint is presented in September.

Well, looking forward to seeing the outcome of the blueprint and really understanding how particularly the South Los Angeles AB 617 community fares in that five year review process. So looking forward to working with you on that and to your confirmation.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. Senator, smallwood cuevas. I agree with Senator Laird. You must be a glutton for punishment and this is a reappointment. This is tough work, particularly when you combine the air quality board with Carb. So I want to thank you for your service and your thoughtful responses and obviously your incredible preparation about who's sitting up here and what we might be interested in. So I appreciate that.

Look forward to supporting, but we're going to go to Members of the public and we're going to start right here in room 2200 and I will ask for those to come forward, your name, your organization, if any, and very brief comments. We have multiple appointees today and I anticipate a longer meeting. So with that, welcome and good to have you here.

Thank you very much. Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air in strong support of Mr. Krakow's confirmation. As you can tell, he's hardworking, extremely knowledgeable and effective and we very much need his continued leadership at South Coast, which continues to have the worst smog in the entire country. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Hi, Beth Malinowski with SEIU, California, also in support of the reappointment of Gideon Krakow. Behalf of our Su Members, especially those in Southern California, grateful for the partnership. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Michael Claiborne with leadership, Council for justice and Accountability in strong support of Gideon. Krakow's reappointment. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Chair Members. Chris Grogan with the Praying Mckayley on behalf of ChargePoint and very much in support of Mr. Krakoff's reappointment. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Adam Harper with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association. A strong support of Mr. Krakow's reappointment. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him and his willingness to keep serving. Thank you.

It's from the mining board days.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Kayla Robinson on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition and CRNR Environmental Services. A waste hauler down in Southern California. And just want to support Mr. Krakov's reappointment. And thank you so much for all.

Of your hard work.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Michaela Elder on behalf of CalStar and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in support of Mr. Krakow's appointment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no one else, let me turn to those who may wish to speak in opposition in room 2200. In opposition. Okay, seeing no one approach the microphone, we are going to turn to our moderator and the teleconference and welcome you, moderator and say this will be for anyone in support or opposition. So callers need to identify their name, their organization, if any, and only in support or in opposition. And nothing further with that. Welcome, moderator.

If you would like to provide public comment today in support or opposition, please press 10 at this time and we have no comments.

Thank you so much, Mr. Moderator. We will be back with you a little bit later in the meeting. So with that, I will come back to Senator Laird.

I would move the confirmation of Gideon Krakoff.

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

Laird, Laird Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. Grove, Grove Aye. Atkins, Atkins Aye Five to zero.

Congratulations. Five to zero. We will forward this on to the full Senate and thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Let me just check and see. Yes. Or a few minutes. Don't go far. We're going to just to my colleagues, I'm saying that don't go far. The court reporter asked for a few minutes. Okay, we'll be right back.

Okay, everyone, we're going to come back to order here and go on to our item 1 B, and that would be the governor's appointment of Laurel Firestone to the State Water Resources Control Board. So let me say welcome. I'm just noticing all three of our conferees today are our attorneys. That's neither here nor there. It's just a comment as you're getting situated. Thank you for your patience. I will invite you to acknowledge anyone you would like to make opening comments, and then we'll go right to comments and questions of the members. So welcome.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I really appreciate the ability to be before you for consideration of my appointment to the State Water Resources Control Board. I want to thank my family and friends and particularly my husband, who's here with me today for the support that has allowed me to serve in this position for the state of California.

There's nothing more important than ensuring access to safe, clean, and affordable water for all Californians throughout our diverse state. And that's really been a guiding passion and focus of my career since I graduated law school and began working with communities in the San Joaquin Valley that lacked safe drinking water, some of which for more than a decade. This has been a top priority for Governor Newsom, for the Legislature.

And as I heard from many of you, I'm grateful to have served in this position for the last four years and proud of our progress towards realizing the human right to water and to protecting and restoring the waters of our state. Much work remains, and I'm eager to continue to work and learn from and support diverse partners, agencies, leaders from across the state that are doing the hard work we have ahead as we adapt to our changing climate and hydrology here in California. And I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm going to turn to my right now and start with Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you so much, Madam Pro Tem, and so glad to be in conversation with you again. I enjoyed our talk earlier this week, and what struck me is just how much you lean into the commitment that water is a right here in the state of California. And that's what your role as a Board member is to uphold that right for everyone to have access to good,, clean, and affordable drinking water.

So I really appreciated our discussion, and my colleagues know my conversation is always about this nexus between environmental, sustainability, and economic sustainability for our communities. And far too many of our communities of color often fall at a disadvantage. And a lot of it has to do with access, not just to the basic rights, but also the ability to afford them because they have quality jobs.

One of the conversations we had was about a report that was done by UCLA that was looking at some of the barriers in the water sector in particular some pretty glaring statistics. But one of the two things that were identified as major barriers in the sector is poor gender and racial inclusivity and an overall lack of awareness of the sector, particularly among young workers.

And we see this crisis in a number of places but I often feel it's really acute when it comes to water because we've had all of these instances of challenges with our water in terms of the level of pollutants and how it impacts particularly communities of color, low wage working communities of color. And sometimes I think we often forget that if we had those communities represented within the sector, there are some internal checks and balances that we could authentically have.

But because of the realities where, previous to coming to the state Legislature, I spent some time working with groups across the state around water sector career access. And in some of our communities down in Southern California there were water districts where 89% of the district were all white males doing that work, which gives pause in terms of the future of the sector.

So a long lead in to my question, but can you talk about the status of the Water Board's efforts to really both diversify and include internally, but particularly externally, as we begin to make historic investments, once in a lifetime investments in this sector. And then a follow up question is are you looking to replicate any of the successes that you may be seeing early on?

Pilots and programs, projects across the state, such as one that I know, IEWorks in the Inland Empire area that the Los Angeles community helped to incubate with leaders there. How do we learn from those and expand? So long question, but looking forward to your answer and that's it. My two questions in one, because I know time is a wasting.

Thank you so much and I also really enjoyed being able to connect and your leadership in this issue that I know I certainly share. Representation within the water sector is far from where it needs to be, that's both in the workforce and in decision making positions, and that's across the board, at the local level, and in both staff and elected positions. This isn't just a talking point, this goes to the quality of the services that folks get in this state.

And so ensuring that the people that live in communities that are served are part of the services to provide that and oversee those services, helps to ensure the quality that everyone receives in addition to ensuring good jobs. And the water sector has great jobs. And so I think it's a huge opportunity.

We are looking at the Water Board we adopted racial equity resolution, and then just this January, a racial equity action plan that sets forth not just actions and commitments to ensuring bringing a racial equity lens into our own decision making, but also looking critically at our workforce and identifying metrics to see not only what action to understand the impacts of the actions that we're taking to try and improve racial equity within our workforce. We also, though, have a huge amount of resources in investments.

As you mentioned, we have our SAFER program that's particularly targeting low income communities and communities of color. And so within that program we're tracking jobs created and developing specific programs to target workforce development opportunities within those communities that we're funding.

Really what we rely on in that is partnership with groups like you mentioned locally that are really connected with communities on the ground and have the expertise in workforce development, and making sure that we're supporting that and we're integrating that expertise and that infrastructure into the programs that we're funding and the agencies that we're working with. Public service and working with the state is good jobs, good training.

And so we see also our own workforce as a way of building more diversity overall within the water sector. But we do have a long way to go, and it's something that we are really leaning into and looking at explicitly as we're moving forward with both our investment programs and, as we discussed, our operator certification programs. These are really good jobs.

We're in real shortage in the state and so we've been partnering with locals in Southern California and elsewhere to see how we can help with translation, ensure online access so that folks don't have to travel up to Sacramento to take tests, and work on programs to support veterans, and other pipelines to get into this sector. Thanks.

Thank you so much for your answer and I look forward to working with you and particularly on the certification process. I know we talked about the challenges in terms of the prerequisites for that and all of the criteria that may not be applicable or relevant now, that we may need to update and modernize. So I look forward to working with you on that. Thank you. And I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Madam Pro Tem. Thank you so much for being here. I have just a couple of areas I would like to address, and I think you're probably very familiar with them. And one has to do with the concerns that I've received from my district with regards to the Board programs that do not give districts full credit for the amount of water reduction that they generate with these type of projects, which doesn't sound like a very good way of incentivizing districts to be able to reuse and recycle. How does the board ensure that we maximize the incentives for water reuse and recycling programs?

Do you folks conduct surveys or workshops with the applicants so that they can adjust the program incentives to boost participation in future projects? Because I know, and just speaking personally from my district or my personal city, they're very, very engaged in these projects and have been very proactive prior to state coming in and mandating a lot of these requirements. So they've been very proactive, very visionary in their efforts, but yet they do not get compensated or give full credit for the work. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Yes, thank you so much. And I agree this water recycling and reuse is a fundamental pillar of the Governor's Water Supply Strategy and the transition we need to make to be resilient in this new climate future. Your district and much of Southern California has really been a leader in the world around instituting reuse and recycling and will continue to be. This is an area where we on our financial assistance are putting a huge emphasis.

I don't have off the top of my head the exact dollar amounts, but we've invested billions of dollars in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure and have programs continuing to support water recycling and reuse. And so this continues to be a focus on our funding side. We've adopted and track water recycling, volumetric water recycling, and have ambitious goals to increase that, and are working with the water reuse sector to identify how to further support and accelerate those projects.

I believe the specific frustration has been around development of our water efficiency, our conservation and efficiency regulations which are looking at how to make conservation a way of life. It was in conjunction with legislative requirements and our proposal hasn't come out yet.

We've just done an administrative draft, but we've been working with the water sector and stakeholders across the state, but particularly with water reuse and recycling agencies to identify how to make sure that we are giving credit for the water recycling and reuse that's going on just as we're setting tight budgets. We are recognizing that a lot of folks have put in that technology in order to become more resilient and that needs to be reflected. And I do believe that will be reflected in the draft that comes out soon and there will be a full public process around it so that we can make sure we get it right.

And just for clarification, you're referring to a full service credit for the water that's being recycled in those regions that have been very proactive in building that infrastructure in the past couple of decades. Because that's the concern, right? The fact that they're not getting full credit for all of the efforts and water that they are recycling and that is kind of undermining the efforts and the investments that they've actually made in that.

So I just want to make sure that we are looking into ensuring that all of the districts, and by the way, thank you for the comment on acknowledging the efforts that we've had in our district, because they're remarkable. And I wish the rest of the state could use them as models of what is possible when it comes to being very visionary and engage in those efforts before the state has to come in and tell you you have to do it.

So thank you for that, but I just want to make sure that we are clear on that, that these districts should get full service credit for the work that they've done in the recycling portion of it. The second area that I wanted to discuss with you has to do with regards to the staffing levels at the regional level and the concerns.

And I'm sure you are probably aware and love to hear your thoughts on that issue, but they have to do with the fact that it's taking up to five years for some projects to be approved for the review. So I'm not sure if that is something that is within your powers or your purview powers within the Board to ensure that we have enough staffing levels to review projects so that they are approved on a timely manner.

Because otherwise, of course, we know that the longer these projects are in the process of being approved, the cost of doing those projects increase exponentially. So it's in the best interest of all of us to ensure that these projects are approved, reviewed and approved quickly and receive that feedback. And so your thoughts on the fact that we don't have enough staffing and the ones we do, by the way, I received great feedback on the individuals that are currently reviewing these projects as being very competent and great to work with, but we just don't have enough individuals on that.

So are you aware of it? What is the process that we have to do moving forward? Is it something that we have to do legislatively with regards to ensuring that we have the funds to fund these positions? Or is it something on your side that you folks have to, can't find the workforce to meet the demand or if we just don't have the money for that?

Yeah, thank you for that question. And just to make sure I'm understanding, this is for permit approval or for funding approval or both?

This is for reviewing the projects in order to be constructed, I guess. It's the review process of the projects.

Great. Yeah, thank you for the question. I would say, maybe I'll start on the funding programs that we have in the state. When we get a construction application, it has taken us far too long to be able to approve that those projects, and there's a number of reasons for that, but that is something that we have taken head on in the last few years. In particular, we have a group of stakeholders that are helping us review.

We had an audit, but we also commissioned an independent review to be able to help us look at our own process about how to make accelerate our own processes of approval. We've already adopted and taken action on all of those recommendations. And so we are seeing drastic improvements in acceleration of that processing. On the Regional Board project review on the regulatory side, we at the State Board, we each have our liaisons with some of the regional boards.

And so we regularly meet and follow those boards, identify what priorities are, and look at how the State Board can be supporting them. There are times when the State Board can take action, like creation of a statewide permit that will streamline what has to be done at the local level. But there are limitations of staffing. One really important thing to keep in mind that is on the forefront of our mind is we are a fee funded organization.

So that means staff, for the review of all those projects, is funded by fees on permit holders. And so as we increase staff, that raises the fees that folks that projects are going to have to pay. And so we review that annually. We work with stakeholders to review that and make sure we're getting that balance right. Because I think, as you said, everyone is feeling cost pressures each year, each month, costs are going up. And so anything we can do to reduce the need to increase costs is on the forefront of our minds as well.

So just the final comment. It's interesting to note that we've placed these requirements and mandates and we want to have these goals for water recycling and reuse and build that infrastructure. The projects need to be reviewed and approved by these boards both at local and regional. And yet, we're passing on the cost to these projects in order to be able to do that. So that's something that we probably need to look into in order to be more effective and efficient in our goals moving forward.

And I wonder what the factors would be as far as the cost of perhaps maybe finding a way to fund the ability to expedite this process or have more staff available, versus what it would cost for the projects in the long term to be approved. The time period of the approval process of these projects in the long term. So thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. First of all, Ms. Firestone, thank you for meeting with me yesterday. I appreciated it very much and I appreciated the length of time that you spent with me so we could address several items, several questions, and several projects that we have going. My colleague from San Bernardino did, The Inland Empire did ask questions that I had. But I do have a few questions, some that we talked about yesterday.

In my area, we have a lot of small water districts, not major metropolitan districts. Some of them have less than 100 members. The same person running the water district is running his farm and just trying to make sure that his neighbors have water. We talked about, they don't have a lot of access or staff to be able to access resources for grants or programs.

What's your comment on that about availability for these small water districts to be able to have access to those things, where a major metropolitan district would have 20 staff members working on it, to where these small districts would not?

Thank you. And thank you so much for your time and leadership. So our SAFER program, which began just as I was appointed, is really focused specifically on identifying where those communities are that may not be able to access the funding programs without assistance. And typically when we've had funding programs, we let applicants come to us and whoever comes, we analyze and give folks money on first come, first serve.

We're really putting that on its head and identifying where are the needs, how can we proactively identify resources to support those projects being developed and prioritize those for funding where it's needed most? We have contracted for well over 100 million over the last few years with technical assistance providers serving at this point, over 500 communities throughout the state in providing planning, resources, those sort of technical assistance to help develop grant applications, identify what solutions are and support, really, as you said, the local volunteers that have day jobs and still trying to keep the water flowing.

We still have a long way to go to make sure that those systems though have truly sustainable solutions and that they're not having to rely on the state for assistance well into the future, but that we're helping them have resilience and the economies of scale that they need to be able to ensure their customers have safe drinking water from the top.

I appreciate that very much. Thank you. We talked yesterday significantly about GSAs and GSAs that are not going to be able to meet the criteria set forth in the SGMA plans that were passed out of this building. What's your take on the waterboard and where they're going to be on the deficiencies in these plans? And I don't think anybody wants the state to take over, right?

But there is a threat under the legislation that if the agencies, these GSAs don't meet this demand, which is very difficult to meet 100% participation, various industries, whether it's white spaces, farming, municipalities or I mean, it's everybody that has to participate. What's your thought on the six groundwater basins that have not or they have deficiencies in their plan and what's their fate?

Yeah. So, Department of Water Resources has identified these six that are deemed inadequate. All of these are really the areas of the state that have by far the biggest challenge. It's not for lack of effort and commitment from locals to develop solutions. It's really that these challenges are immense.

And so we really see take seriously our responsibility to be that backstop or safeguard to ensure that we are protecting our groundwater resources, our towns from going dry and subsidence, just as we're trying to support locals being able to craft solutions that are sustainable and also create optimal approaches locally for how to navigate what are huge impacts and will continue to be. We have a timeline that we've outlined earlier this summer to go through those six.

We're doing individual notices, hearings to first bring them one by one into probation that triggers through that process. We'll work with them, and we already have been, but even more formally, identifying what the deficiencies are and what we can do to help ensure that they're able to address those and continue to work through local management. But if we need to and we will continue to act as that backstop and safeguard as we move forward to ensuring that our groundwater ultimately achieves sustainability.

Thank you. Before you get passed off to my colleague to the left, the former Secretary of Natural Resources. Where'd you grow up?

Well, I was born down in Los Angeles and after law school moved to Tulare County. As we discussed, my husband and I started our family and our careers there and lived there for a long time. And I then more recently moved up here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. I'm not entirely sure how to follow that, but first, I appreciate you meeting with me. And we get lists of people that support or oppose people. And you had one of the longest lists of supporters that we have had in recent times. So I just wanted to congratulate you on that. My colleagues went into a lot of the areas that I was going to go into. So let me do two that we talked about yesterday.

And one is that the whole issue of chromium-6 contamination is coming to a head. And as Senator Grove said, I similarly have small water districts, and some of them are dramatically affected by this. And some are in among the most disadvantaged communities that are in my Senate district. So talk to us about the status of sort of whatever you call it, setting the level and what is the status of being able to assist disadvantaged communities in what is an expensive process to have clean and safe drinking water.

Yes. Thank you. This is an area that's been a major priority I know well. There's communities that are dealing with very high levels of chromium-6, have been for a while. And one of the challenges for communities is, because we haven't not yet established an MCL or what that legal limit is––

Which, since I'm on the acronym.

Sorry.

Okay, Maximum contaminant level, right?

Maximum contaminant level. So the safe drinking water standard––

For those of you following––

Here's who I remind the former Secretary of Natural Resources not to talk over each other. Not you, him.

Don't talk over, yeah

No, thank you. Acronyms are just such a problem in the water space. So until we set what that legal limit is, water agencies don't know what the solutions are that are necessary to be or at what level they need to treat to. So one of the important things is just ensuring that we are establishing that. We started that process where we will be finishing it over the course of the next year, hopefully before the end of the year.

A core part of that process is, of course, understanding public health protection. This is a very toxic contaminant, much, especially in your region, is very much naturally occurring in a lot of areas. So there's not responsible parties in all cases. And so, we need to ensure people are protected in their homes and can trust the water that they drink, while also ensuring that they can afford the water bills to get water into their homes.

So as we do this in this process, we're identifying what our potential technologies, what those costs are, will be, and what assistance we have. And so we're evaluating all of our grant programs. We have already, even before this MCL is established, been funding projects that address chromium-6, even before the MCL is established, to support communities that are already trying to get solutions in place rather than wait and being proactive.

But as we go through this process, and I think the feedback from this first hearing was laying out explicitly, what funding do we have to ensure that we can cover many of those costs that are very real? This is expensive treatment, and there's funding we have to build infrastructure. But a lot of the big costs with chromium-6 are operations and maintenance. And that is much harder to come by and tends to fall on rate payers.

It also just goes to, I think water is becoming more expensive as we deal with increasing contaminants, infrastructure investments, resiliency, all this water reuse. And so identifying how we are developing affordability programs is only going to be more and more important.

Thank you. And as I said in our meeting, I want to continue to work with you and advocate for some of the people that are water districts to make sure, because they're not sophisticated, that they will need to be connected in a way that somebody helps them understand what assistance is available. So I will look forward to continuing to work with you. Then the other issue we talked about involves a very famous constituent that I have, who once said, 'Make my day in a movie.'

And he was trying to get a water rights finding from the Water Board in order to donate 58 acres of land near the Carmel River. And it took four years. And every year, I told you, every year, he would ask for a meeting and he would say, 'I'm not getting any younger.' And when the whole thing was over and it took four years, everybody at the Water Board said, 'Do you understand how quick this was?' And I was astonished. And so my question yesterday in the meeting is, what are the issues here in trying to get focused on this being done in a reasonable amount of time?

Yeah, I appreciate that. Sorry. Water. As you know, the Legislature has supported funding for our water rights modernization program. One of the big pieces is just being able to digitize many of the paper records that exist as we go through any kind of adjudication process, whether it's through the courts or through our Administrative Hearings Office or Water Board process. Just getting access to what our paper records over in file cabinets doesn't lend itself to a functioning water rate system. And so critical to accelerating this process and cases, like you mentioned, is just looking at how we can make our existing system work effectively.

We are seeing both progress in that sort of digitization efforts as well as important discussions that are happening here around how to make sure that our system is going to be able to function both in this new hydrology and with the drought. But adjudication is a big challenge. It's something that is the scale of what's needed across the state and the expense and time that goes into it through the court system is prohibitive in many cases. And so there's a lot that we need to do to figure out how to modernize our water rights system in California.

And I know, just as a comment to close on this, I know that we have some bills that are very controversial right now that get into this. We have talked about some of them, and I have the Cuyama Valley for now in my Senate district. And there are two cared farmers that use 70% of the water. And then there's these people that use ten acre feet a year. They're the ones that are supposed to be cut.

And when you determine the water rights, it's done on the basis of usage. So somebody has been overusing, they get this advantage in the water rights system. And if you're conserving, you get punished in the water rights system. And it's something I think over time we have to look at. And I don't think it came up yesterday, the digitization. And what did come up is that you're a Board member and then the Administration makes the budget requests and sometimes you can't influence them.

But it seems to me that if there's digitizing that needs to be done to expedite the process in Senator Grove's area of interest, we had this same problem with oil permits. We had 50,000 that were on paper, and we had to fund a strike team to come in and digitize them so that people didn't have to go to some filing cabinet to find out what the historic right had been or application. And if that's what's going on here, it's like I hope the Legislature hears in a way that we can appropriately help fund something that would move this process much more expeditiously.

I appreciate that. And actually, we have received $30 million, and now I can't remember which year budget it was, and we have a contractor underway to help us develop that process. So I appreciate the Legislature's leadership already in starting that process of digitization and I'm hopeful that that can be coming online in the near future. But there's a lot more to do and I really appreciate your leadership and the important discussions that are happening here.

Thank you. I appreciate your response to my questions.

Thank you. A lot of ground to cover, I know. I only have one comment because my colleagues covered so many important issues. I know that the Board in July released a proposed amendment to its power plant cooling policy. I know that yesterday the Board approved that amendment to the once through cooling policy for power plants and I'm pretty sure I understand the rationale to ensure availability of electricity as we move in later into the summer.

You were part of that decision. Because I know that I have colleagues that are not supportive of that, this has been a long discussion for many boards based on circumstances on the ground and what the Governor has proposed and what we had to do. But I'm just curious to given your history and your involvement and your perspective, I think from previous conversations and appointments, your perspective and insights on your approach to that decision-making on this issue and main factors that informed your decision on that.

Yeah, thank you for that question. Our board meeting yesterday went till 11:30 at night and we had more than 60 commenters, including Senator Stern on this. It is really not the position that we want to be in and it's an odd position for us because really our purview is once through cooling, it's intake and discharge from into the ocean for sea life, and it was never about closure of gas fired plants versus other renewables.

And so the way that our program is set up is really to recognize and rely on our sister agencies that are experts in the energy sector to provide advice on what's needed to have a reliable grid. I personally felt it was a very difficult decision for me, personally, as I sat there yesterday. We heard from communities, and it is extremely true, that black, indigenous, communities of color are disproportionately impacted and are frontline communities on climate change impacts, on gas fired plant air quality impacts, and that the last thing we need to do is perpetuate that.

And also we need to ensure that we don't have blackouts in the short term as we're making transitions and there are disproportionate impacts when the electricity goes out as well. Where I landed is I just don't have the energy sector expertise. I really rely on the array of state agencies that do oversee that.

But I also think our role is to make sure that we're asking the tough questions, holding them accountable to stay on target. Because I will say, this is the third time in the last four years that they've come to ask us for extensions on that because we don't have the grid reliability that we need to. And so I think we made it very clear that we need milestones and we need regular reports to see that they don't have to come back to us again to do that.

I really appreciate your response on that. I felt compelled based on the testimony and that some of our colleagues have concerns. And clearly it was a difficult discussion for us as we considered the proposal from the Governor last year. So I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments to all of our questions. We're going to go to members of the public. And so with that, I should throw up the reminder of the teleconference line, which that number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 1618051. But we're going to start right here in room 2200 with people who are in support, and your name, your organization, if any, and very short comments. Welcome.

Thank you and good afternoon. Kyle Jones, Policy and Legal Director with Community Water Center, and strong supporter of our former co-founder, Laurel Firestone. And just to be brief, the Water Board did an amazing job getting funding out the door. They've recently gotten out $3.3 billion. And this year the fund expenditure plan for SAFER is projecting to get $778,000,000 into disadvantaged communities. And it takes leadership who knows what it takes and has worked alongside residents to get that done or drive out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Cody Phillips. I'm the Policy Analyst for California Coastkeeper Alliance and very strong support. And just to say, I was at that meeting till 11:30 last night and Board Member Firestone listened intently and had an excellent discussion that entire long, long day. Thank you.

Thank you. I guess I should say thank you for being here today after that long, long night. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, here in strong support of Board Member Firestone's confirmation. I've had the pleasure to work with her for many years on access to safe and affordable drinking water and appreciate her leadership. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon, Madam Pro Tem and Senators. Tim Valderrama with The Weideman Group. Here on behalf of our client CalWater, we provide water service to 2 million Californians from Chico to Palos Verdes. I've had the opportunity of working with Ms. Firestone for many years. There's a reason that you guys have received so much support for her, and it's really because not only does she hold the belief in safe and affordable and clean drinking water for all of California, but she's really dedicated her life to the pursuit of that goal and we're in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Speaker Pro Tem. Danielle Coats with Rancho California Water District in Southern California. I'm pleased to encourage the support for the nomination of Board Member Laurel Firestone back to the board. Board Member Firestone has been a longtime advocate in providing the voice to the voiceless in all aspects of the conversation of the human right to water. And despite having sometimes been on various sides of the table, it's always a pleasant and thought provoking exchange. And she has done a fantastic job as a member of the Board making tough decisions, and we'd like to encourage her participation.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support? Okay, having heard from those in support, let me see if there's anyone in room 2200 who would like to speak in opposition. Okay. Seeing no one, let me return to our moderator and welcome him back and ask if you will tee up people to speak in support or opposition. Name, organization, if any, and just your position in support or opposition. Welcome back, Mr. Moderator.

If you would like to provide public comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time.

Thank you. And we do have a couple people queuing up. It'll just be one moment, please, while we provide them with line numbers. And first we will hear from line 21. Please go ahead. Your mic is open.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association and California American Water in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we also have a comment from line 25. Please go ahead, line 25. Your mic is open.

Yes, this is Emily Lam from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

In support or opposition?

In support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

Thank you very much. Again, we'll be back with you shortly. Let me come back to the Members. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. I move the confirmation.

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

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. We will move this on to the full Senate. And let me say thank you very much for your service, your time, and your thoughtful conversation today. Colleagues, the chair needs five minutes. And with great apologies to Mr. Weiss, we will be right back, I promise you, and get underway. Thank you for your patience. Come back to order and take up item 1C, and that is Jack Weiss, JD. to the Board of Parole hearings. Let me thank you for your patience. Incredible patience today.

But I got to compliment my colleagues. We are actually moving along quite well, so thank you. I know you, are so right, Senator Laird, but let me say welcome to you, ask you to acknowledge anyone you would like, make any opening comments you want, and then, as you have seen, we'll go right to Members for comments or questions.

Great. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Members of the committee, for having me today. I'm Jack Weiss. I'm from Los Angeles, and I'm here today. And really, wherever I am, I'm only there because of my wife, Leslie. And she's not physically here today, but she's why I'm here today. And I was born at the hospital at UCLA. And then 28 years later, I graduated from the law school at UCLA. And so I've spent most of my life in Los Angeles.

After law school, I clerked for a federal judge, for a somewhat conservative federal judge. She'd been the United States Attorney. And she encouraged me to become a federal prosecutor myself. But she also taught me some important lessons about law enforcement. She taught me that the power to indict is the power to destroy. And that the most important thing you could do. And the thing I saw her do day in and day out in her court was hold the government to a higher standard.

She held government lawyers, prosecutors, to a higher standard than anyone else. And when I appeared in front of her myself, that is how she accorded me. And I knew that's because the government has all the power. So I became a federal prosecutor at her encouragement. I was a fraud prosecutor. I was a white collar crimes prosecutor. I was assigned to our major fraud section and our public corruption and government fraud section.

I brought cases under laws varying from securities fraud, bankruptcy fraud, health care fraud, a consequential public corruption case, and a consequential civil rights case that was actually brought under the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, involuntary servitude. After that, I served on the Los Angeles City Council for eight years, and my principal focus there was public safety. I served on the Public Safety Committee, and for many years I chaired that committee.

And I used my time to work very closely with our then Police chief, Bill Bratton, to improve and reform the Los Angeles Police Department, which I know we're not here to talk about today. There's a lot that one could talk about, but I'm proud of my service there, proud of the efforts that we made to improve the LAPD. And for several years after that, I was in the private sector, but my heart is in the public sector. I love government.

I've worked in all three branches of the federal government. I've worked for a city government. I even spent a summer in the county government, and now I'm in the state government, and I really never want to leave public service. The more and more I learned about this position, the more and more convinced I was. It was perfect for me.

We have a parole board in California that is absolutely the very finest in the United States in terms of Members, in terms of training, in terms of a system of law. System of law and a system of review, because that's the hallmark of a system of law, is all levels of review before, during and after a case.

If it weren't for Governor Brown, Governor Newsom, and the incredible efforts of our Executive Officer, Jennifer Schaefer, over the past ten or twelve years, this would not have been a position that I would have wanted. But they have created something special, and it has been a real privilege to serve here and to make decisions.

And we have a busy, as all of you know, we have an incredible caseload to make decisions every day to protect the public and to recognize the incredible efforts that incarcerated persons make these days, every day in every institution in CDCR to rehabilitate. So I've been very privileged to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions.

Thank you very much. I am going to start Senator Laird with you. I go from side to side, as you notice, but we'll start with you now.

Thank you very much. And I know that we met actually before the recess, so thank you for that time. I thought I'd go right to the heart of there were some concerns expressed about your confirmation, and I felt like our meeting was good and I felt like you bring some very good skills to this.

And the one letter of concern was interesting to me because it acknowledged in it, and the quote is that there was a vast improvement in Commissioner Weiss's attitude and behavior in hearings and implying that it was raised and you improved, but they still expressed concern that somehow you would be where you were before the vast improvement.

And I would ask that you would speak to that because I think that's a very important concern and it's important to acknowledge the improvement and it's important to see where your heart is in that.

Thank you, Senator. Let me address that question in the following way: Being a parole commissioner is a very unusual position. We hold our hearings on teams, which is zoom, and it could be up to a dozen times a week that I am meeting for hours at a time with an incarcerated person, going over their case.

And invariably the focus of a hearing is speaking with someone who usually done something extraordinarily severe and awful, and who may have been subjected to a lifetime of trauma as a child and likely didn't have much in the way of resources then and really doesn't have much in the way of resources now.

They're in prison and I talk with them about their character defects and about their pursuit of self help programming and their attempt to understand, to dig down in a way that it's very hard for anyone to do to understand what went wrong and what they could do better. And so I am in the position of asking people who have relatively little to make self improvement. And that's what I do every day.

So if that's what I do every day with others, that's what I need to do every day with myself. And when I was here in March, I heard there were some concerns that I was conducting my hearings in a way that was abrupt and that whether or not that's true, it doesn't matter. What matters is how people feel. And people need to feel heard and they need to feel that their position was considered.

Look, I come from a federal court background, which is the word abrupt is like the nicest thing you can say about federal court. Okay? It's not a friendly place. It's a severe place. It makes me think of what you're all going through. You've got four and a half weeks and you've got to rifle through a million issues. So federal court is about brevity, and I brought too much of that into my first few months of hearings in this job. So when I heard about those concerns, I spoke with one of my colleagues. We have incredible colleagues at the parole board.

It's not just that we're supportive of one another and that we're collegial, but it is an incredible professional development society. We are constantly actually reviewing each other's cases. And this colleague told me something very important. She said because she'd been a Superior Court judge, she said, in her view, lawyers have difficult and stressful jobs. And when she was a judge, she made it a point not to make their lives more stressful and difficult, but to make things easier for them. And that was great advice.

We went through a couple of sort of tick tock, detailed things to do during a hearing to implement that. And I have changed the way I implement my hearings as a result of that. And I'm committed to that. And I appreciate you giving me the chance right at the top of the hearing to address that.

Thank you. And I assume it's very implied, and I think that was a wonderful direct and heartfelt statement. But I assume you feel like you've learned from this and the way you have been the last few months is the way you will be going forward.

Absolutely, Senator. It's funny. If you were to ask the leadership of our agency, the Executive officer and our agency council, all I want is feedback, because all I want is to improve and continue to improve. I've been in this job a year. If I have the chance to be in front of you in two years, I hope I'm leaps and bounds better than I am today. So, yes, I will stay on that path, and I hope to continue to improve.

Thank you very much. And I really appreciate your willingness to go with that as the first thing right off the top. So thank you very much.

Ask me anything.

Thank you. With that, I'm going to go to Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Weiss, thank you very much for meeting with me Monday. I believe we met on Monday, and I'm sure it wasn't the best or most it wasn't the best meeting that you had. I think you answered a lot of my tough questions that I had, and I appreciate you allowing me to be able to ask you those questions, because I did have concerns in March, as I shared with you yesterday.

Or Monday that I was deeply concerned about some of the comments that had come into my office about the way you conducted your hearings. But I did tell you that I really have a deep, I really can't even recollect the word that I brought forward because it's a sheer balance that parole commissioners have.

Right.

You grant freedom and then the weight on your shoulders if that doesn't work out the way that it's supposed to based on someone's actions at a hearing and what they've done to help. Like you said in one of your statements, CDCR represents rehabilitation and then not to grant freedom and keep someone in prison who maybe deserves to be out for some time period and then taking in all the considerations of the victims, the victims families and all of those.

So I appreciate you letting me, I don't want to say vent to you, but I really did have severe concerns about some of the comments that were made and one letter that came in from victim, a victim. It's very hard for victims to come forward. And I shared this with you a lot of times. We hear from people that are pro release or pro keeping individuals in. And I also shared with you that I heard from everybody when it came to your confirmation.

I do anticipate taking up the challenge that you gave me to watch from your March hearings forward to see how you've changed the conduct in your hearing. And I appreciate you learning from that process. And I mentioned to you also yesterday that I almost regretted you not having, based on what I'd read about you, not having you in the hearing room with the other commissioners, because I thought they displayed a huge sense of weight in how you would take and oversee those hearings.

I was surprised that you watched the hearing, and I appreciate the comments that you made about listening to how your colleagues perform their hearings and recognize where your fault was, or maybe not fault, but where you needed to improve. So I appreciate all of those comments. I just want the commitment from you. Based on I think after one or two people contacted our office, more people rolled in, and for their concern, I want your commitment that what you've done

from March to improve versus previous March days of being very abrupt, very what people described as unprofessional and arrogant and all of those things in the descriptions that we got. I want your commitment that you're going to continue moving forward from the March hearings forward in a way to conduct yourself as an overseer, adjudicator, someone who has to listen to both sides, all sides, that you're going to continue from the March forward versus what you were previously.

Yes, Senator, you have my commitment.

Okay.

And can I just say a word about our meeting? Sure. Please don't apologize for our meeting. You were direct, and I appreciate your being direct with me. And in the future, if you have reason to contact me or want to contact me, I'm confident you will not beat around the bush. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing, because I heard you loud and clear.

Well, thank you. Thank you. Maybe you should come to the floor and talk to my colleagues about beating around the bush. No, but I just want to make sure we put it on the record. I really do. I want to share with you again, like I shared with you in the meeting, you were not the person that sat before me on Monday that I expected to have sit before me.

But you were an individual who really reflected on what was happening in March when you weren't up here with your colleagues. And I appreciate you taking action to make sure that those things continue moving forward in a very positive manner.

And can I say, Senator, I appreciate your taking your time during this hearing to articulate what you just did, exactly how you did.

Thank you, sir.

I more than notice it. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Perfect. And good afternoon. Good to see you again. Grateful to have you here. And I just appreciate that interaction, all the questions that my colleagues have asked. So let me see. I think I'm going to start with the question with regards to Marsy's Law and what it says with regards to the Board shall consider the entire and uninterrupted statements of the victim or victim's next of kin, immediate family members of the victim, and the designated representatives of the victim of next of kin.

Would love to hear from you with regards to giving the legal definition of uninterrupted and what it means to you and how that impacts the victims and their ability to speak on when they have an opportunity to speak. Is it all encompassing? Is it specific to certain areas? If you could give a little bit of a foundation as your understanding on that notion.

Sure. And let me just say by way of introduction that parole hearings, whether or not a victim is present physically or virtually because we're online, or whether or not sometimes a victim or a next of kin representative will be present just to observe the hearing and won't speak, whether or not we're dealing with souls. We're dealing with souls. We're dealing with an incarcerated person, and we are dealing with many, several, sometimes dozens of lives that have been directly and indirectly affected by an awful crime.

And that is a lot. Under Marsy's Law, victims have a right to appear and provide a victim impact statement at a parole hearing. And I have seen on a handful of occasions what I see always affects me. But sometimes I see things that are just so dramatic that they you would wonder how we can do this job day in, day out because it's so gut wrenching. And it is important that victims be allowed to speak uninterrupted and provide their impact statement.

There is a standard admonition that my colleagues and I use at the beginning of a hearing when there is a victim or a next of kin present. And we let both the incarcerated person know that he or she is not to speak directly to the victim or the next of kin. He or she is to speak to us directly.

And we likewise let the victim or the next of Kin know that the same rule applies to them but I've seen that it isn't necessarily reasonable to expect someone to remember that 2 hours later when it's time to give their statement. So I now remind everyone of that before it's time for victims to speak, because I want them to be able to speak freely and uninterrupted for as long as they want and explain what's in their heart.

And this is something I've done in consultation with my colleagues, that it's difficult for people who are thrust into the parole hearing environment to know, oh, this is the way decorum has to work in this proceeding. After all, it's on a computer. It's an odd thing. And so I have made it my practice to really emphasize the basic decorum rules several times so that when it is time to hear from the victim or next of kin that they can speak as long as they want, however they want.

Thank you. So the reason I asked for that, I should have probably given a little context. As you know, we received letters of concern to your appointment with regards to your demeanor in the process of running the meetings, the probationary meetings. But I wanted to just for the record, also share your statements yesterday with regards to your growth in this position, because I asked you about what you have learned and how you've grown in this position, because I think we all grow in our respective roles.

I'm still in that process as a state Senator, so I completely understand the growth process. But for me, I think what was really sort of I'm not sure what the word is, but was impactful of your statements yesterday was the fact that I really appreciated how you recognize that you came in from a prosecutorial mindset and what you stated earlier in trying to be what you said as a prosecutor. There is brevity as an important aspect of conducting these hearings.

And you brought in that mindset and those practices into this space where it wasn't ideal. And therefore the way that it was interpreted by those in the program was not well taken, to say the least, and how you've actually modified your practices, your conduct, to be more considered and more reflective of the space that you're working in right now, and not necessarily from a prosecutor. I can't even say the word from prosecutor's perspective. So I just wanted to have that for the record.

My second question, I'm going to go right in because we want to be quick here, but this had to do with our sexual offenders, and we discussed this in our meeting. Given the lack of sexual offense treatment programs in our prisons, how do you evaluate those inmates who have a history of violent sexual criminal offenses and whether they've been able to address those crimes and become more suitable for parole?

How do you weigh the effectiveness of the CDCR sexual violence treatment programs when considering whether or not to grant those individuals with a history of sexual violent actions. And we briefly discussed in our meeting that sometimes we teach, but not as learners. We don't always own what is taught. Sometimes you learn it. You regurgitate, but nothing necessarily really own what is being taught. Your comments on that.

Thank you, Senator. And I first want to say I acknowledge and appreciate your first statement as well as to this question. I appreciate you did bring this up in your office. I know it's a longstanding concern of yours, and you're right to be concerned about how CDCR provides self help programming and therapy and other alternatives for people who've been convicted of violent sexual offenses to do the work to make themselves no longer currently dangerous.

And you are right to ask about how parole commissioners do that job. The most important thing, and there are plenty of things, but the most important thing that goes into a parole commissioner's preparation on that type of case is the psychological risk assessment done by our forensic assessment division, our professional.

Psychologists who have interviewed thousands of offenders and thousands of sex offenders and go through standard batteries and provide us with context, with background history of trauma risk ratings and discuss with the individual whether or not they have not just taken programming, and there is programming, that's correspondence, they have to reach out on their own to do and try to discover whether they have internalized that programming. And that's what you're talking about, about whether they've truly changed.

All these cases that we do are hard. They're all hard cases because they're all violent, long term offenders. They're lifers, mostly. But I think my colleagues would agree that the sex offender cases among a world of hard cases are the hardest cases. And we do require, I want to say without exception, but in public safety there are always exceptions.

One has to learn that, but basically without exception, that someone who's been convicted of a violent sexual offense, that they on their own, reach out and do the programming if it's not available in the prison. There are recognized programs and correspondence courses and books and other facilities that they can use and that they not just read the material, but that they apply it to themselves and use that as applied understanding to provide it's.

Not just to say acknowledge that they did it, but why they did it and make sure that they have the tools in place to not recidivate. And we go through a standard series of questions and we as colleagues always review each other's cases on a monthly basis. And it's only if someone satisfies basically all of these concerns that we would find a sex offender suitable. It does happen. It's an interesting thing.

I'll just mention, if I can, just one segue we do this incredible thing at the parole board called consultations. Five years before someone's hearing, we meet with them one on one. They meet with a commissioner they're told you're going to have a hearing in five years. You need to get ready for it now. And I meet with plenty of sex offenders and I tell them that there is a path. There is a path.

And we try to provide them with specific milestones and guidelines on the path. At the end of every single hearing, Senator, whether I find someone suitable or not, I wish them luck and I tell them we want them to succeed. So that's my approach.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Royce.

Thank you very much. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you so much for being here with us again, Mr. Weiss. And I feel like my colleagues have addressed the concerns that were raised in our previous date. But I wanted to just say that of 40 years of work in Los Angeles doing a number of public service duties, we did not get one complaint about you being reappointed to this board.

And so I want to thank you for your service and I want to thank you for listening and taking to heart and making the change that you felt necessary to do the job that you need to do better. And I think that's what we're here today about is about the parole board and its ability to do the work that the state of California wants it to do.

And your record stands up against other commissioners who've come before us in terms of your grant rate, in terms of the incredible work that you're doing under the circumstances that I personally would not want to face day in and day out. And we are proud to say that we have a 90% rate of folks who don't recidivate after going through the parole hearing process and that consultation. And that's what this is about.

This is about making sure that folks who have done harm understand what that means, are prepared to make the changes that need to be made, and that we have a structured process to make that decision on whether they're able to re enter. And so I just wanted to also lift up a point. When we met, you talked about who encouraged you to apply for this job. And we have a mutual ally in the struggle of folks who are re entering.

A Miss Susan Burton, CNN Hero of the Year, an incredible womanist leader who is making sure that our communities are safe and those who are returning from prison have a real start. And that's the quote that you said, it's not always about a second chance, but a real start. And I wanted you to elaborate on that for the committee in terms of what you mean by that and the decisions that you come to in the parole hearing process.

I will close by saying one thing I wanted to make a distinction on and you made in your opening statements. And I want to say I think this process and we talked about the structured decision making process was really in response to broken windows policies, right? And the stop and frisk policies of the want to say that we are moving away from that and I think that this must be giving you a new perspective on some of those policies. But if you could just go back to that statement in terms of real start, I'd appreciate you sharing it with the rest of the dais.

The first is the Executive officer of our agency would hate it if I took the bait and started talking about the LAPD. But I would love to talk about the LAPD with you Senator, I really would. And I would love to continue to engage with you in the years ahead because I know the policy issues that you care about and I think you know that you and I share pretty much almost every objective.

It almost actually physically pushes me back in my seat to hear you say Susan Burton's name. And for folks who don't know, she is someone who suffered a lifetime of trauma and several rounds of incarceration. And when she got out, she made it her point to start really first of its kind and now national leading model to help reentry for incarcerated women. And she's extraordinary.

And I guess what I would just say to you Senator, is that there are 1500 Superior Court judges in the state of California who can send you away for life. There are only 21 parole commissioners who have the opportunity to find that you have made the necessary rehabilitation, that you don't pose a current danger and find you suitable. And I very much wanted to dedicate the next several years of my life to that work because it's so important.

And the thing I'll say about doing that work in California under Governor Brown, Governor Newsom and our Executive officer Jennifer Schaefer is because we follow the law, because we follow a structured, respective form of analysis, and because there are so many levels of review for our decisions. Our decisions are not universally, but by and large met with respect and understanding and really I think will pave the way for the rest of the country.

And there are so many parts of this country that so desperately need a real parole system. So I'm really proud to work every day on making California's continue to be the best in the nation. So that's why I'm here. Thank you, Senator.

Well, thank you very much, colleagues. I think I very much appreciate Senator Laird bringing up particularly the one letter from the Crime Victims Alliance and the feedback that they know. And I very much like the vice chair. I really enjoy always hearing from Members of the parole board. I learn something each and every time and I think we said that back in March as we heard your colleagues being reappointed.

What we continually learn from this very tough job. I can't imagine being in the role that you're in and the work that you have to do. We got a second letter from, obviously a relative of someone that went through the process with you and some of the feedback that you've already given us about what you learn from some of that feedback and how you respond to family Members, et cetera. I think mostly I'm thinking of the letter that I think she sent.

I don't know, we'll see if people are on the phone lines, but to her, I certainly understand how difficult it must be to be a victim's family member. In fact, I do understand most people don't know that my brother was murdered more than a decade ago and so have been through that process in another state. I also have a very dear, close friend who's gone through that process here in California.

And what I would say from that is as someone who actually supports progressive policies for rehabilitation, my colleagues know my voting record and even voting on propositions that focus on rehabilitation. I couldn't do your job, but I'm glad that you're willing to do it, and I appreciate very much your accepting the feedback.

I think this has been a very unique process at this committee to hold up an appointment so that we could take the time that we need to allow colleagues to ask the questions and to do a little more research. But to that one letter from that one, I believe woman, yes. I would just say I certainly feel your pain. And it certainly is difficult to be in a process where we have the ability to weigh in and have influence in appointments as well as policy.

And I wanted her to feel listened to and heard from this body as well as you and your role as the commissioner. So I just want to thank you for going through this process with us and hopefully to the vice chair's comment to follow through and make sure that this is something that moves forward in a way that you've heard the feedback.

But again, I don't want to be righteous here because I think the job you do is very difficult. Very difficult. So I want to thank you for that. And I wanted to make the comment to that one letter I got from an individual out there who is the sister of a victim. And we heard you.

Thank you.

We're going to go to Members of the public, and we're going to start right here in room 2200. Anyone who is here to speak in support. In support. Okay. Seeing no one. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition. Okay. Mr. Moderator, we are coming back to you one last time to see if you will tee up anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition and as a reminder, to give their name, their organization, if any, they represent, and their support or opposition. Welcome back.

Thank you. If you would like to provide public comment in support or opposition, please press 1-0 at this time. And we do have a comment coming through. It'll be one moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. One more moment, please. And we will now hear from line 26. Your mic is open. Please go ahead. Hello.

My name is Michael Romano. I apologize for the background noise. I teach criminal law at Stanford Law School. And I'm the chair of the California Commission on a Revision of the Penal Code. I want to speak in strong support of Jack Weiss's appointment to the Parole Commission.

If I could say briefly that I've known Jack for a bit of time now, and I've spoken to him many times about the job. And there's nobody that I've known in really any level of government who has worked harder at the job to learn the job, to study the rules, the law, to get the experience. I mean, I've been thoroughly impressed from day one.

And I think that we should have more people like him on the board, candidly, and I'm happy to answer any questions, but I just want to give my full throated support for his appointment to the board.

Thank you very much. And certainly thank you for your service on the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code. We thank you for your testimony. Mr moderator, other witnesses.

Madam Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

Thank you very much. We appreciate so much your service, always. Okay, colleagues, I am happy to return for a motion. Senator Laird, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. So moved. A motion is made. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Not voting. Ochoa Bogh, not voting. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Grove? Not voting. Grove, not voting. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye. Three to zero.

Three to zero. We will move this forward to the full Senate for confirmation. Let me thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, colleagues, this concludes the public portion of today's agenda. I want to thank all of the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Rules Committee or visit our website for instructions. Your comments and your suggestions are really important to us and we want to make sure that your testimony is included in the official hearing records. So thank you, everyone, for your patience, cooperation, and with that, the Senate Committee on Rules will now move into Executive session. Thank you.