Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. If all Members of the Committee can come to room 2100 so we can establish a quorum for our hearing, I would be much appreciated. We have three bills on today's agenda, and there are no consent items. Since we do not have a quorum, we'll begin as a Subcommitee and establish a quorum once we have sufficient membership. We're ready to hear from our first author, Senator Blakespear. I see you're here.

You can present your Bill, SB 689.

Hello. Good morning, and thank you for having me today. My name is Senator Catherine Blakespear, and I am pleased to present SB 689, which will reduce unnecessary delays in building bike lanes along California's coastline in already developed areas.

During my time as the mayor of the City of Encinitas, we built several protected bike lane projects, amending the Local Coastal Program, otherwise known as the LCP, and commissioning the required additional traffic studies resulted in a difficult, expensive, time consuming, and at times needlessly contentious process to build a bike lane.

Making biking easier, safer and more common is a critical element in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as we confront the climate crisis, it's important to us as policymakers to ensure good governance throughout the state and eliminate any bureaucratic hurdles that may prevent or prolong projects that provide a net positive to society and our environment. My team and I have had productive conversations with the Coastal Commission over more than a year about this effort, about how to more quickly and easily build a bike lane.

And now we are on the same page about how to achieve this objective. So this bill does two things. First, it states that a new traffic study, which can be costly and time consuming, is not necessary for an LCP amendment when a local government is converting an existing motorized vehicle lane into a dedicated bicycle lane. And secondly, it allows for the amendment to the LCP to be processed under a De Minimis exemption when the Coastal Commission's Executive Director determines that this is warranted.

SB 689 is a good governance bill that will improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Coastal Commission in the construction of bike lanes. With me today, I'm pleased to welcome to the microphone Moira Topp from Topp Strategies. She's here in support on behalf of the City of San Diego.

I'm so sorry. And we'll move on to lead witnesses in support. And due to constraints regarding the length of hearings, each side will be permitted two minutes each for their two primary witnesses. Others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measure. Ms. Top, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I am Moira Topp here on behalf of the City of San Diego. Happy to be here as a sponsor of the measure. SB 689, as we heard, is intended to reduce unnecessary delays in the development of sustainable bicycle safety transportation projects along California's coast. This Bill will maintain important coastal protections and ensure broad coastal access, but replaces the current burdensome and time consuming Coastal Commission Process with one that is streamlined and purposeful.

The California Coastal Commission has begun to mandate that local jurisdictions amend their local coastal programs for projects that merely restripe the road for congestion reduction purposes. An LCP amendment process can take 18 months to two years to complete and, of course, cost city resources. These re-striping projects do not extend beyond the current right of way or have any impact on surrounding flora or fauna.

Improving our bike lane network, especially along the curved coastal roads, will also lead to better bike safety and likely result in fewer fatalities on our coastal roads. SB 689 is intended to reduce the unnecessary, costly, and time consuming bureaucratic hurdles which have prevented local jurisdictions like the City of San Diego to pursue common sense traffic improvements. This measure will improve traffic safety for all modes and assist in meeting our climate and traffic safety goals.

On behalf of the City of San Diego, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear, do you have any other witnesses in support today?

We do not.

Okay, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this bill? Seeing no one, we'll move on to any other support and opposition witnesses' me too testimony. Anybody here want to speak out in support or opposition of this bill, please just state your position, name, affiliation, position on the measure.

Good morning. Sharon Gonzalez, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no one else in the room. I think we now have quorum. So before we move on to a vote, let's establish a quorum really quickly. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, a quorum is established, so we've heard from our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the dais. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments on the measure? Senator Padilla?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to congratulate the author on a thoughtful bill. I think the De Minimis route is totally appropriate here at the right time. I'm happy to move.

We have a motion from Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Senator.

I also just want to mention I strongly support this Bill. I think multimodal transportation is very important. I ride my electric scooter up and down in Sacramento, ride my bicycle in Irvine, and I think we need safer passageways for our different modes of transportation. So we have a motion on the Bill. This is dual referred to Transportation, so the motion is due passed to Transportation. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you.

The vote is 5-1. We'll leave that on call. All right, the next bill is SB 559. By a guy named Senator Min. Can I pass this over to you, Senator Lear?

Great. You may proceed.

Okay. Here to present, SB 559 seeks to end the dangerous practice of offshore oil drilling in California State waters. As you all are aware, in October 2021, a major oil spill took place off the coast of Orange County, Huntington Beach, in my district. Approximately 25,000 gallons of oil spilled into our coastal waters, killing fish and birds, forcing beach closures, and devastating the local economy. It took nearly 1500 people and almost $3 million in state funding to clean up this bill.

First responders reported that the oil leak stretched over hundreds of miles from the coast off of Huntington Beach all the way past the Mexican border. Just as coastal businesses started to recover from this event, two months later, Platform Eva experienced a leak. Many of these refineries are entering 60 years of operation. Not refineries, these platforms. And they've outlasted their intended lifespans and are ticking time bombs.

There is little incentive for the remaining wildcat operators to reinvest in these platforms, and as such, they continue to pose a grave threat to our marine ecosystems, our coastal economies, and our state economy. It's time to stop this pollution where it starts and put the state onto a transition path towards more sustainable resource procurement. SB 559 would impact just three offshore oil and gas platforms: Eva, Emmy, and Esther, all of which currently operate off the coast of Orange County.

These platforms were all constructed between the years 1963 and are the last remaining oil platform still in operation in state waters.

This bill would direct the State Lands Commission to begin negotiations for voluntary relinquishment of the leases that authorize oil and gas production in state waters, and if negotiations are not reached by the end of 2026, would require State Lands Commission to terminate the leases. It is imperative that we continue the conversation about ending offshore oil production in state waters as we move towards a clean energy future.

Not only do we owe this to our coastal communities, we owe it to future generations to meet our energy targets and, at the same time, safeguard our precious marine ecosystems and our beaches. As Californians, we identify not just with our economies, but our cultural identity lies with our coasts. And I think this is a long past due. So, I'm joined today by Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity to testify in support.

Thank you. And you have two minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Good morning.Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, with thanks to the author and to the committee, we strongly support the termination of offshore oil and gas leases. California oil and gas production is at the end of its life cycle, and this bill is important to minimize the damage this industry does on its way out the door. Operators under these decades-old leases long ago recoup their investments. Industry profited handsomely while externalizing their environmental and health harms upon California's people, places, and biodiversity.

We applaud the legislature's push to finally end destructive fossil fuel production in our state waters. We strongly support the author's amendments to give the Commission tools to determine whether leasees are owed any compensation at these leases. No compensation is warranted where the Commission is acting to abate environmental and climate harm caused by fossil fuel production at these leases. Oil and gas production has long polluted and disrupted coastal marine environments, imposing continuing risks on coastal communities, economies, health, and environments.

These leases and the remaining active offshore platforms pose ongoing and unacceptable threats to the $44 billion coastal economy in conflict with California climate policy; these leases are far beyond their expected life. Much of the infrastructure is old, corroded, ultrahazardous, and long past its lifespan. The cost to decommission and remove the platforms and other infrastructure and to remediate the area, which are the legal responsibility of the industry, likely far exceed any future profits from their continued operation.

It's critically important to ensure these polluters pay for their cleanup and don't dump their costs on Californians this defining decade in our current fiscal issues, demand, and this legislation offers bold, significant near-term action to address California's climate and environmental justice crises, enabling its leadership and continued push to a sustainable, just and prosperous future. Oil and gas production is a public nuisance that has no place in California's future. There's no safe or clean way to drill for oil.

New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia have all banned offshore drilling in state waters. It's time for California to pass this bill and protect its waters and communities. Thank you. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Scarringe.

Thank you very much. And I have listed no other primary witness, so this would be the opportunity for anybody to come to the microphone and do, in essence, me-too in support. Is there anybody that wishes to add their names in support of this bill? Seeing no one now, we'll move to the opposition, and the same rule applies. We have up to two minutes for the lead witness. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, as we did last year, my name is Paul Diero, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. We do have a fundamental difference about this bill, and that is the mandatory termination of offshore leases in state waters we believe would be a taking and is unconstitutional. The bill would result in substantial state liability. As a result of that, a shared agreement between an operator, operators, and the State Lands Commission is nothing that we would oppose.

It's the mandatory nature of this, based on a study which was in a bill a couple of years ago that State Lands Commission is concluding now. We don't believe that is an adequate tool to negotiate what is a private agreement and what are leases that go in perpetuity. For all those reasons, we oppose the bill.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. This would be the opportunity for anyone to join in a me-too opposition to this bill. Is there anybody that wishes to do that? Seeing no one, I'll bring the matter back to the committee. And just before we get committee questions or comments, let me ask: are you accepting the amendments that were probably required from the chair of the committee?

Yes. I meant to say this in my close, but I am accepting the committee's amendments.

Okay, great. Now, we'll move to committee members. Questions or comments? I am just guessing Senator Grove has a comment.

I do have a comment, and I know you guys get tired of hearing it, but I just despise the hypocrisy. We import 1.8 million barrels of oil every single day that we continue to use as Californians. We import them from foreign countries. Ships that have leakage all across the ecosystem when they come here to bring California's oil that Californians use from other countries: Ecuador, there's blank flagships or flagships that don't have the right flags, there's proof that we get oil from Iran that funds wars.

There's where the Amazon, Columbia; if you look at the Secretaries of Energy's website, it will show you that we get a lot of our oil from four Californians from where the rainforest is where we bulldoze down the rainforest. When you talk about bringing those ships here, there's no regulatory process for these foreign operators.

We learned last year that they just simply submit a letter to CARB and says, this is the carbon emissions that we emitted, and sometimes it's 26 million metric tons per trip from these foreign countries to get us there. And they just say, just trust us. This is the emissions that we've emitted, and they're completely off and very low. I agree with the opposition testimony.

I mean, if you own your home or you have an indefinite lease on your property, and the government comes in and says, we're going to voluntarily make you negotiate with us, and if we don't like your negotiation, we're just going to stop your lease. That is a taking under the Constitution. And when we get sworn into office, we always raise our right hand and swear to defend the constitution of the United States and California. And we are supposed to support that.

And this bill creates a taking under that constitution, and it will be challenged. But that's just a resource. And that people would have to fight that challenge all the way to the Supreme Court. And when California loses, that's extensive taxpayer dollars that would have to be reimbursed to operators. It's a taking when you don't allow people to have permits, specifically like in Kern County. And I know this is separate from your bill, but they don't deny the permits. They don't deny the permits.

They just let it sit for years and years and years because it's a taking. You're not allowing them to use their property. When we consume this and it makes our life not a third-world country. And we consume oil every single day. And I know you ride a scooter, but there's a lot of oil and petroleum products in that scooter that you would need to make that scooter go. So, just my comments.

I'm opposing the bill for obvious reasons because, number one, the oath that we took, and number two, it's very hypocritical.

Thank you very much. Other comments from committee members?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to address the takings question. And thank you for your comments, Senator Grove. And thank you for your comments, Paul. If at first, I would look forward to seeing a Bill looking into the climate carbon emissions created by oil import in the United States. So hopefully someone might take that up. That'd be a great Bill. I'll take a look at that. On the takings issue, our Bill, particularly with the amendments, actually contemplates that. And so a taking is not unconstitutional unless it's not accompanied by fair compensation. And so our Bill expressly states that if warranted, if it is determined, for example, that a taking has occurred, fair compensation would be provided. So with that, I think it does satisfy constitutional requirements under the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment. But happy to discuss, I think legislative council has also found that to be the case as well. At the end of the day, it's a $44 billion annual coastal economy, and that is what the coastal economy generates for the state, as my witness stated, and that is under threat. And so even if you don't believe in climate change, and I hope everyone up here recognizes the critical moment that we're in around climate change and carbon emissions, the risk reward of offshore drilling, given the threat it poses to this vibrant coastal economy that is at the life and essence of our cultural identity as Californians, I think it's not worth it, and I think, I hope you will agree. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the role.

Senators. Min. Min, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Allen, aye. Becker. Becker, aye. Dahle. Dahle, no. Grove. Grove, no. Hurtado. Laird. Laird, aye. Limon. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Stern. And Senator Seyarto is here. Senator Seyarto, no.

By my count, that's five ayes, three no's. We'll put the Bill on call and the chair comes around for the next Bill.

Thank you. Sure. Finally, our third Bill and final Bill today is SB 571 by Senator Allen. Senator Allen, you may proceed.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members, let me start by thanking the Committee and staff for its work on the Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. This Bill, with the Committee's amendments, charges the state board of Forestry with the task of presenting a report to the Legislature on recommendations for minimum egress and egress root standards. Our state finds ourselves at a real challenge in this space.

We continue to need to develop additional housing, but we also need to be making these decisions with the necessary considerations for the kinds of environmental threats that some areas pose for development. Last year, the board released its minimum fire safety regulations, but those regulations do not consider a minimum number of ingress and egress routes required in new developments.

And I think we've seen all over the state, I know certainly in some areas of my district, existing evacuation routes would be stretched very thin in the event of a major wildfire emergency, and new developments in those areas without the inclusion of additional necessary evacuation routing, could be deadly. We've certainly seen what that looks like in some parts of the state with some of the tragedies we've had over the past few years.

So the Committee amendments seek a valuable step forward in this area by having the board study this issue while considering important components such as the size of the development, if it would contain vulnerable populations, traffic impact and others. And as noted in the analysis, this bill is a work in progress as we continue engaging with stakeholders on this nuanced but important issue. And I commit to working with the Committee and keeping you closely apprised of developments on this bill should it pass today.

So here to testify in support is Matthew Baker from the planning and conservation league.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead witnesses in support. You have two minutes, sir.

Good morning. Chair and Senators. Matthew Baker, policy Director for planning, conservation league. I don't think with this Committee I have to go into all the reasons why we need to do better planning in high risk fire areas.

But the motivation of five and 171 was simply that rather than ask the question of where, where or not you can build, if you do build, you have to be able to demonstrate that you can get people out safely. Common sense idea that will save lives. And our original proposal last year was much more prescriptive, this proposal that met a lot of concerns, that prescription.

And this proposal in turn would leave it to the agency to figure out what the appropriate standards are in this space, which may be appropriate place to do so. But we anticipate that there's going to be some concerns with this approach too. And we are very committed, and I know that the author is too, to working with all interests involved in figuring out what the right policy is in this space and to start saving lives.

We ask more than anything for your support today so we can continue that conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead witnesses in support. Let's hear from anyone else in the room wants to give me, too, testimony in support of this bill. All right. Seeing no one, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? We see two. Are you also lead witness in opposition? So we have two. You guys. Okay, two minutes each.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. So we have an opposed position on the previous Bill recognizing the amendments that are forthcoming. The work that the author has done to pare this back, we are viewing it right now in this moment as really a work in progress. It's an important issue. It's one that needs to be addressed.

So I think we're looking forward over the next few months to roll up our sleeves, figure out how know really craft something that can be a win win for everybody. So thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Jennifer Speck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we are elated to see the new amendments in the bill. We had previously opposed the introduced draft of the bill as we found it to be a little bit onerous to have the builder be handling the planning in that particular activity. With that said, we are formally removing our opposition. Sorry we didn't get a letter in time due to the crossing of the amendments after the letter deadline. We'll formally send a letter after this hearing.

We're going to take the Bill to our board of directors for further direction. But fire safety is extraordinarily important for our housing stock once it's built, to make sure that people can escape. And we appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition or in whatever to this Bill? Seeing none in the room, okay. Let's bring it back to the dice. Senator Grove.

Thank you Senator Allen, I just want to tell you thank you. I think every one of us, especially with the high fires that we had since we've been in, know people need to be able to get out safely. I watched a video of one of the trucks hauling water to one of the fire areas, and it was horrendous. It was like driving through a fire tunnel. And that was the only egress to get into that community and get out. And I can't even imagine that happening.

So I appreciate your bill and what you're trying to do. I wasn't opposed because before the amendments, I'm going to sit and watch it, because you are also another person in the body that I serve with that you really do take into account people's opposition and why they have grave concerns. And you really do try to work out those issues, and I applaud you for that. And I look forward to this coming to the floor. Thank you.

Senator Laird.

Thank you. I agree on the problem that absolutely needs to be addressed is an unbelievably major issue. I have questions on two pieces of this, and the first one is the process, because if I understand it, with the amendments, and this is moving very quickly, and this is the first time we've seen it, it would require report, have there be six months before there's an action and the Legislature could choose to get involved in those six months.

Is that the way it's structured?

Yeah.

On the page six of your analysis, that's the proposal from the.

Why didn't you just have it come back to the Legislature? Because my experience is that whenever you have a chance for them to comment, nobody ever comments and it just is a De facto move ahead with the process. Why wouldn't it come back to the Legislature?

I mean, I'm happy to consider having a report to the Legislature from the board. I think the thought was we wanted to move this process forward. We're so aware of what an enormous challenge we have in this space and we wanted to make sure that whatever effective response would be expedited.

Well, my second question may inform the first one. Okay. And the second question is on the substance, because it seems to say

there is a report, of course.

Right, I get it. But they have a life of their own. And so the thing about it is it's a report on doing a process for new construction, is that correct?

That's right.

How do you define new? And let me give the context for the question, because the reason that some of the things blew up with the previous rules at the board of forestry was minimum road widths. And in the Santa Cruz mountains, when there was the CZU fire, if minimum road width had been required for the rebuilding of the houses that had burnt, about 25% of them would not have been allowed to rebuild. It would have actually pushed people out.

And so I can envision the response that, zero well, this is just new, but what if there's one new building on a road of 12 houses that need to be rebuilt and then it requires a thing that can't be met and it's a De facto not rebuild for the other 12 houses? How do you get at that to make sure that that circumstance doesn't happen?

I mean, look, developments over a certain size has really always been our goal here. Not just single family homes, but it.

Still captures the same thing. And you see, that was the center of the debate in the rules in front of the board of forestry. That's why so many people were up in arms, because it was a change that was going to come after a year or two after their house burnt down, but they hadn't rebuilt it and they'd been taking these steps and they hadn't been able to get there, and it was going to push them out.

And so I think the other example that probably makes the point on both sides is paradise. And with paradise, and Lord knows, they need a separate route, they need a second route in and out. That was the big thing. But if under the prescription of the bill for the study, there's one new Safeway or something in the entire city, and then there's 15,000 houses that are being rebuilt.

Even though the 15,000 houses don't come under the new, the one Safeway does, and it triggers it for the other 15,000 houses. And in some instances, if it doesn't happen, once again, there's a rebuilding problem. And so as much as it seems clean to say new, it is not clean in the actual places where there have been fires and there's rebuilding struggles in the Santa Cruz mountains. They're in the middle of this horrific situation where, I don't know, some very small percentage of rebuilt.

And then the atmospheric rivers hit and they flooded, the roads closed, and all this stuff happened. And now they all have FEMA applications for two different disasters. And the process delayed the rebuilding in a way that some of them couldn't get it done before the next disaster hit. And so I'm concerned that this is moving so quickly that there's unintended consequences.

And I want to make sure that even though I know it's been moved to a study, that the study takes into account these things and doesn't set up a system of unintended consequences in whatever comes out there. I don't know if there's a place to go here today, but I really wanted to put it front and center because for me, I'm willing to give you a courtesy vote to move this along because it's under deadlines.

But if this isn't addressed in some significant way when it comes back, I'm going to have a problem.

I appreciate all of that, and certainly I agree there's some ambiguity here in the scenario that you raise. And so it's good to help to inform how we hone this. I will say, of course, it's those areas where we've already had a demonstrated fire problem, where we probably most need to have a strong look at better egress and ingress standards for those developments.

It's one observation, and that's that I did a comparable bill when I was in the Assembly when we were doing a flood control package, and there was actually no state requirement or no requirement with regard to evacuation and safety plans related to levees and floods. And so I did a bill that was negotiated on behalf, ironically, it was one of those wonderful moments where I'm doing this bill on behalf of Governor Schwarzenegger, and I can only get democratic votes.

It was like just really a wonderful moment. And yet the issue was at a global level. Can you have people that are on the ground in each area do a safety plan that really meets their local needs and makes sure that if there is a flood emergency, there are evacuation routes and that all this conversation has happened before you're in the emergency? So I would just ask that you take this into account, because I already have constituents that are alerted to this and are concerned.

And the one last anecdote, I would say, is when we were in the middle of the drought in 2011 to 2015, we had water systems in this area drying up. And so Mark Gillard Ducci and I lead a tour because we had to build a four mile pipe over the Santa Cruz mountains to hook one water district up with another so it wouldn't go dry in that neighborhood. And we're going up these roads, and Mark Gillard Duce brings three huge honking suvs that are oes suvs.

We go up this road where redwood trees are the shoulder. In some places, there's just enough width for the car. And we had to, three of us, turn into a driveway and back up in reverse order to get out. And I said to him, just FYI, you're looking at this in a water issue. It's going to burn here at some point. And the exact same issue of ingress and egress are going to be remember this moment and remember how wide this is and how it.

So I just want to make sure this is the reason everything got really controversial and bogged down at the board of forestry were these practical details. So, anyway, enough. But I feel like you've said you'll consider this going forward..

Absolutely and I appreciate you bringing all this up, and I'm looking forward to working with you on it. I agree there's a certain degree of ambiguity here with regards to the definition of new development. This was language that was given to us by the Committee. And quite frankly, I think there's some open questions about where we ought to go with that definition. So let's work together on trying to hone it.

There's open questions, but if 25% of the people after a fire can't rebuild their houses, I want you right next to me at the public hearing.

Ideally, it's not about making sure they don't. Well yeah no

we've aired this.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Thank you, Senator Allen. Senator Stern has a question or comment.

Yeah, I want to thank you for bringing this. forward I was, to be frank, a little, I guess, disappointed that we're going to have a two step or maybe a three step now, if we have to, then have a look back to the Legislature.

I think the lack of leadership on the risk in fire zones around the push for very high value land from speculative developers who want to build big, fancy lots and do things that know my high school nurse whose home burnt down in Woolsey, or my own place that burnt down, or Thomas, or all these fires we've been through in those heart wrenching stories, but instead some sort of proxy for punching a hole right into very high value land where there's a lot of gain to be had.

And I don't think it's necessarily something that is going to go help real working people. You look at some of the efforts that the board of Forestry thankfully decided not to move on that inform this bill and this whole arena, and it's stuff where, okay, under the auspices of better fire safety in ingress and egress, how about we just take that fire road or that dead end and make it into 25 new mcMansions?

That's housing, and you can say that's resilient, or, why don't do 25,000 units? Those decisions are getting made right now, and there's a lot of money on the line for those decisions to get made. So somebody has to pump the brakes here and at least look at risk.

And I think that's what your bill now it's saying, go study it for potential inclusion, which I'm not thrilled about because I think if leadership doesn't come from the Legislature, this insurance crisis is going to eat the whole state alive. And we can tell ourselves it's not a problem and that we can kind of just keep doing how we're doing it or chip away at it, but people are going to go bankrupt on it, and it's going to empty out to all the nonfire areas, too.

Because if we break the insurance market in California because we're so busy trying to ignore risk where there's risk, or force them to ignore risk where there's risk, or write a policy here where you actually, and this is, by the way, my folks, right, these are my hometowns. Like, this is where I represent. So these are hard truths.

But if we don't do that stuff from the state level, then it ends up being a giant subsidy to some kind of thing that really just tries to ignore what climate is doing to us. So it's a really hard problem to solve. I appreciate that you're going to take a shot at this, at least to get some process going at board of forestry. I want to commend the board for being deliberate about this work and for sweating those details, and I hope they keep doing that.

But I think the Legislature, not just in this Bill, but in General, is going to have to really step up and wrestle with hard things, especially those of us in fire zones.

Listen, I agree with you, Senator. I obviously had a more ambitious bill as originally proposed, and we scaled it back. I do want to recommend you also for your work on SB 63 and some of the work that you've done in this space. Look, at the end of the day, I think we got deep into a rebuild conversation.

Maybe what we ought to do is just grandfather in the existing stuff, but as we're talking about new construction, truly new development, we just have to be smarter about what we're allowing. I think. I mean, of course, the bill's much more narrow. It's just going to study this stuff and look at these issues.

Thank you, Senator Stern. Thank you, Senator Allen to Senator Dahle.

So, as always, you do good work. And I wanted to just kind of maybe springboard off of Senator Laird. So the devil's in the details and somebody who represented paradise, who actually did it. Before paradise fire, we did a bill to actually help access. The problem was people didn't know to go that way during the fire. I actually did a bill to widen out and actually get an access out prior to the paradise fire, but we had no way to communicate it in real time.

And since then, we've done a lot with the 911 system. We were trying to come around these natural disasters. So you have fire is what we're talking about here. But flood is another one, which I know Senator Stern and many others have had those issues. Typically after a fire, we have even more exposure. So for me, I'm going to lay off the Bill. I think there is some work here do, but the devil's in the details.

When you talk about new construction and you talk about and somebody who sat 16 years on a Board of Supervisors and thank God I don't see another development because those are very contentious and previous boards do things and previous legislatures, and it puts us in situations where we have a paradise where we had growth, not very well managed, I'll tell you that. But it took 35 years to do that. You don't fix that with one bill or with one.

And then when you have a fire, you have rebuilding issues, which I've faced with not only in paradise, but in Shasta, where we've had lots of homes damaged. So the devil's in the details. We want to get this right.

I think you're on the right track to get it right, but we need to make sure that it is right and that we give some ability for good, common sense approach to what happened in the past to be able to be managed in a way that is more safe so we can have those insurance rates go down.

This is after a fire or after a flood, when you're trying to rebuild, because people have their whole life investment and it's gone, and then the rules come in and say, well, you can't do all these things. And trust me, what Senator Laird's talking about I hear every day from my constituents who are trying to just live a normal life in California. So it's dicey. This is a tough area, but I think you're moving the right direction.

But the devil is in the details, and we need to get it right. And the board of forestry has been put on the spot, quite frankly, to try to fix all these things that happened over decades. And I've been to the board of forestry and I've testified in front of them and get people appointed to it because it is a tough job to do and we want to do it right.

So I just want to say that because I think there is, what you're hearing from this Committee and why the bill is tough is because there's a lot of detail that needs to be in here. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, Senator Seyarto, thank you very.

Thank you very much. So I'm going to be supporting your Bill today. The perspective I have maybe different from others, but watching over the years as our fire issues have evolved to a different level than they have, we have different equipment issues. We have bigger, larger equipment that we bring in, and a lot of times that competes with these ingress-egress issues. And we developed communities in areas, and frankly, that wasn't something that they were considering when they did it. And as we have more of these fires.

As we have more of these type of disasters, we need to learn from those and that learning is all about keeping people alive in the future. It kind of transcends whether it's a brand new development or you burn down a town and then rebuild the town.

But at the same time, as my colleague was stating, we don't want it to turn into this giant bureaucracy where people are now displaced for years and years and years while we try to figure out what to do or what they should be doing and increasing cost burdens on them. But ingress and egress is an extremely important part of any community planning to keep people alive in a disaster.

While obviously there are some issues within this that our colleagues have expressed, we need to continue to move forward and try to find that sweet spot where we're addressing that going forward for everybody. If I build a house and it suffers a disaster personally, I'm probably going to look at what I did before and do things a little different the next time because I want it to survive the next time.

And that's what we're trying to do in bills like yours, I believe, is to make sure it doesn't happen like that again.

Exactly.

And that we give people a chance. I hope we can find that sweet spot where we don't over bureaucratize the process of recovery because that's a huge ordeal for people. But at the same time, we don't build exactly what got them there in the first.

So with that, I'll be supporting your bill and appreciate as you move along, maybe working with us a little bit to see those perspectives, especially relates to how things have evolved in the fire service, how our equipment is so much bigger, how our responses have so many more vehicles, et cetera, going in. And a lot of times that in itself is what happens is they lock up the engine or the roadways because they're not wide enough to get people up out as you're trying to get.

So anyway, appreciate the Bill, and like I said, we'll be supporting.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sayerta. We do not have a motion yet. Senator Laird moves the Bill. Anyone else want to speak up? All right. I'll just say that this is a thought for roging bill. Obviously, I represent the 37th Senate district in Orange County, and this is obviously an issue that affects my community as well. I think we're one of the fastest growing communities in the country, and a lot of that building is occurring in very fire prone areas.

The issue of ingress egress is a critical one. And as your bill really identifies a problem that we needed to solve, and I think the witness who said this is a work in progress, I think, described this accurately. I know you're going to continue working with folks, and I want to thank my staff for really, I think, helping this bill move along with the amendments that they suggested and wrote. I want to thank you for working with staff and with stakeholders.

And with that, would you like to close?

I just want to thank my colleagues for the very thoughtful and meaningful, very substantive conversation that we've had. I think everyone's brought up. You all understand what I'm trying to do here with this bill. Clearly, you also understood what I was trying to do with the previous version. But where we are now, and I think everyone has grasped it really well. And if anything, as you say, the devil is in the details. There's a number of things we need to work out here.

But ultimately, this really comes down to what Senator Ciardo said, which is about trying to figure out a way for us to not repeat the same mistakes of the past and grow in a responsible way. And it's within that spirit that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Roll Call

Thank you, Members.

Okay, the vote is 8-0. We'll leave that on call. And I think we're still waiting on one more Member, but we'll go ahead and open up the rolls on our previous two bills. Let's go back to SB 689 by Senator Blakespear. Assistant, please call the roll on that.

SB 689. The motion is due pass to Transportation, and the current vote is five to one, with Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote is seven to three. We'll leave that Bill on call for the moment. Let's go to SB 559 by Senator Min. A motion here is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote count on that is 6-3, and we'll leave it open for Senator Limón. And I think we're just waiting on Senator Limón at this point, right?

So we'll take a recess at this point in time. Thank you so much.

So, we're going to open up the roll again, and we'll start with SB 689 by Senator Blakespear. The motion is due passed to Transportation. Assistant, please call the roll.

Right. The current vote is seven to three. [Roll call]

The vote is 8-3. That Bill is out. Let's move on to SB 559 by Senator Min. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is six to three, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call]

The vote on that is 7-3. The Bill is out. Finally, let's move to SB 571 by Senator Allen. The motion is due pass if amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

All right. The current vote is 8-0, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That vote is 9-0. The Bill is out. And with that, we're done. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.