Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

All right, thank you, Committee Members. And I did not bring any witnesses today, so this should be very, very brief and quick. So thank you, honorable chair. I'm here to present SB 936. And first, I would like to thank the Committee for their Working with my staff to make the Committee or the Bill a little bit better. And I accept the Committee's amendments. Car crashes are a top cause of unintentional injury or death.

And for Californians, thousands of people lose their lives or suffer life changing injuries annually in automobile collisions. California traffic fatalities surged 22% from 2019 to 2022, while severe and fatal traffic crashes have resulted in $166 billion in economic and quality of life costs for California in 2022 alone. A 2022 study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found disparities in the risk of travel for Low income communities of color.

Recently, a devastating crash involving a drunk driver speeding at 104 miles an hour in a 45 miles an hour zone claimed the lives of four Pepperdine University students on the Pacific Coast highway, also known as Dead Man's curb. Over the last 10 years, there have been 4000 collisions on dead man's curve. I used to, when I was a battalion chief, I'd occasionally work in this district, and I'm very familiar with this location.

Serious road improvement safety improvements have been neglected on PCH, along with other unsafe stretches of road throughout the state. Caltrans and regional transportation agencies receive federal and state funds to build, maintain, and develop the highway and road improvements. My Bill requires the Office of Planning and Research, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, to develop and publish a report detailing the needed safety improvements of the 15 highways with the highest number of collisions.

With this report, the Legislature can examine means of addressing these locations and how best to expedite the safety improvements needed. SB 936 is a step forward forward to a proactive plan to address our most dangerous highways, and we'll give the Legislature the information needed to save some lives. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, anyone who wants to voice support for the Bill, come up to the mic.

Good morning, chair Members Bernice Jimenez Creager. With the California Trucking Association. As our logo states, we drive for a living. Safety is our priority. So we thank the author for his Bill and we stand in support.

Thank you. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill opposition. I will bring back to the Committee. Let me just start by thanking, first of all, thank you for your leadership on this issue. And obviously, we were both together in a pretty powerful transportation hearing last week on this topic and got a chance to spend some time grappling with the real challenges on the PCH elsewhere. So I want to thank you for your leadership. I certainly appreciate you accepting the amendments. I'm happy to support the Bill with that understanding and would love to continue to partner with you on road safety issues.

I mean, the situation in Pacific Coast highway has truly been devastating for the community there. And I know there are several other places around the state with similarly dangerous setup, so love to work with you on that. Great. Thank you. I'm sure Senator Dahle will move it when we have a quorum.

When you have a quorum.

Unless he has any questions, we'll give the opportunity to close.

All right, well, I just respectfully, after I vote, it's a very important topic, and it's a way of us to recognize and advance these projects so we can stop mayhem out there.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, thank you.

We'll get this Bill through. Okay, so let's now hear from Senator Blakespear, who's presenting through SB 1053.

Good morning.

Good morning. You may proceed when ready.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair and Committee and staff, for your work. I gladly accept the Committee amendments. Plastic waste is choking our planet. Globally, we use an estimated 5 trillion plastic bags a year, and the average American uses one plastic bag a day. A plastic bag has an average lifespan of 12 minutes, and then it is discarded, often clogging sewage drains, contaminating our drinking water, and degenerating into toxic microplastics that fester in our oceans and landfills for up to a thousand years.

The culture of single-use consumption has resulted in a tenfold increase in plastic pollution since 1980. If we only account for coastal regions alone, some 18 billion pounds of plastic is produced every year, which is the equivalent of five grocery bags sitting on every foot of coastline around the world. This is not a new problem, and the Legislature addressed it a decade ago by passing SB 270 by then State Senator Alex Padilla. When SB 270 was passed, we had 157,000 tons of plastic bag waste a year.

But by 2022, that number has skyrocketed 47% to 231,000 tons. And why is this? It's because customers began using these thicker plastic bags that were deemed to be reusable and recyclable under our existing law. It was essentially a loophole. But what we've learned since is that these thicker bags, they rarely get reused and they are not recycled. Very few places are able to recycle these bags, and so they have simply contributed to the problem of plastic bag waste. What SB 1053 does is quite simple.

It no longer makes exceptions for plastic film bags and allows customers to purchase a paper bag or bring a reusable bag to the store. There will not be any more plastic film bags that are available when people buy their groceries at the grocery store. This is not a problem for customers or stores. It is a practice that has been followed by Trader Joe's for quite some time.

And it has the support of the Grocers Association and to ensure that we do not have a new effort a decade from now addressing the problem of new disposable bags that are even thicker, that are even thicker plastic. My Bill strengthens the standards for what is a reusable bag by, one, requiring that they are either cloth, a woven textile, or washable textile, that they require straps that are sewn with a thread. They increase the minimum use standards from 125 uses to 300 uses.

We will also be requiring a disclosure on how much plastic a bag would contain in order to inform customers of their plastic consumption. Opponents of my Bill claim that thicker plastic bags currently provided are recyclable in California, but that is simply not the case. According to CalRecycle, the polyethylene film used to make these bags are not recyclable in California. That is a statement from CalRecycle.

And now opponents want an opportunity to demonstrate recyclability through SB 54, which is absurd, as they have had many years, a decade, to demonstrate that they can recycle their product. But they are not even remotely close to doing that. Simply put, my intention with this Bill is to create a sustainable and thriving environment that is not littered with plastic waste. Our plan is straightforward. Stores can provide 100% recycled paper bags, or they can let consumers purchase or bring their own reusable bag.

So those will be two options. This is frankly overdue, and I am thrilled to be championing this effort for our state on the Senate side. Thank you. And I would like to introduce my witnesses who are here in support. I have Louis Brown on behalf of the California Grocers Association, and Mark Murray on behalf of Californians Against Waste.

Great. All right, whoever wants to start first.

Morning, Mister Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in support of the Bill. We were at the table and negotiated SB 270 with then State Senator Alex Padilla. We saw the implementation of that Bill. And actually, when we started implementing that Bill, it worked. We actually saw a significant reduction in the use of the reusable plastic bags that were defined in SB 270. And then COVID happened.

And with COVID we told customers not to bring reusable bags back to the store. And they transitioned to primarily the reusable plastic bags that were defined in SB 270. We've now learned over a decade that, according to CalRecycle, those bags are, in fact, not recyclable. And so in order to live up to the commitment that we made in SB 270, and really to come back and look at a Bill, review it, revise it, improve it, we're here in support of SB 1053.

Now, we do understand, and I do think that there is work that needs to continue on this Bill. And we've had our conversations with the author and sponsors on the issue of the recyclable paper bag. Currently, the law requires that it be 40% of recycled content. The Bill says 100%. We need to have conversations about what the right level of recycled content for paper bags is so that we in the grocery industry can have a reliable supply of these bags to provide our customers.

And so we commit and have made the gesture with the author, both authors, of the Bill, that we need to, in earnest, get down to and find what that right level of recycled content in paper bags is so that we can move forward with this policy. With that, I ask for an aye vote.

Mister Chair and Members, Mark Murray with the environmental group Californians Against Waste. And Mister Brown and I were just talking about the fact that it is possible that we were the only two people in the room that were here a decade ago on this issue. And we are now united in acknowledging that we didn't get it 100% right 10 years ago. But the policy did work. It did work in terms of transitioning people from relying on those flimsy, single-use plastic bags. We eliminated those bags.

We eliminated the litter that was associated, uniquely associated with those flimsy plastic bags. And in the initial years of the policy, we saw consumers, 40% of consumers, bringing their own bags to the grocery stores. In other instances, relying on recyclable recycled content paper bags. And as Mister Brown noted, then COVID happened, multiple transitions occurred. But then we saw the emergence of these very low cost, thicker plastic bags that did have an exemption under that original law.

Now, you're going to hear from the manufacturers of those companies that make those bags, and they're going to claim that they continue to be recyclable, but recyclable was the low bar. What we all know is that those bags are not being reused, they're not being accepted as a reusable bag by consumers. And that was the objective of this policy.

I'm absolutely confident that at some point in time, if we give them another 10 years, they're going to figure out a way to recycle those plastic film bags. But they've already had 10 years, so no more do overs for that industry.

Right now, the updates in the definition of reusable bags that the Senator described are designed to make these bags an actual reusable bag experience for the consumer, to provide the consumer with the type of bag that they're going to bring back over and over and over again. So we think we've improved on this policy immensely.

Just one other fact that I want to note, that when the plastic bag industry did a referendum on this policy and put this policy before voters, the voters that passed that measure were voting on a policy that didn't have the thicker plastic bags. And in fact, in the counties that already had a bag ban in place because of a local ordinance, 60% of the voters passed that measure. So the public supports this policy.

They support precisely a policy that's before you today because that's what they were experiencing in 2016.

Thank you.

Okay, let's hear from folks who also want to voice their support for the Bill at the mic. Just state your name and affiliation.

Thanks.

Mister Chair. Justin Malan for Heal the Bay and also the Environmental Health Association. Thank you.

Hi. Kristin Gorey on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support.

Thank you.

Christina Hildebrand and on behalf of the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support. Thank you.

Megan Shumway from Sacramento 350 in support.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lindsey Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of CALPIRG and our colleagues at Clean Water Action in support.

Chris Grogan with the Praying Company, on behalf of Republic Services in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, Western Plaster Waste Management Authority and Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force in support.

Good morning. Miha Laguer, on behalf of the Surf Rider Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alison Waliszewski with the Five Gyres Institute in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Janet Cox for Climate Action California, the Glendale Environmental Coalition, the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network. Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Miller on behalf of Climate Reality Project Los Angeles, Climate Reality Project San Fernando Valley, and the California Coalition of Climate Reality Project. All in support. Thank you.

Mike Kopulsky, President of Procore Products International and importer of all bags agnostic in support because I'm going to make a lot of money on this and just feel bad that solid waste will go up tenfold.

Cynthia Shallit on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong, in support.

Christina Scaringe on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, in support. Thanks.

Katie McCammon, 350 Sacramento, support.

Good morning. Chris Rose on behalf of Kroger, which operates as Ralph's in the author and the Chair's districts in support.

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

Great. Thank you. Okay, see no more. Let's ask the opposition folks to come up.

Good morning. Hello.

I know. I know. All right. We love the scarf. And you may proceed. Yeah, please. Yeah.

Good morning Chair Allen and this distinguished Committee Members. My name is Clemens Stockreiter and I am CEO of PreZero U.S and we are based here in California. My company is part of an international environmental service and recycle provider backed by one of the largest grocers in the world. That means we understand grocery sale, collection, ERP systems, sorting and recycling to reuse and can help develop solutions to many of today's plastic recycling issues.

As we meet here today, we all have one common goal, to protect the environment. As while I'm certain that the proponents of SB 1053 have the best of intentions, this legislation as written will not meet the common goal, but will actually damage California's environment. SB 1053 will force our community stores to promote two environmentally harmful alternatives. First, either imported heavy woven or non-woven polypropylene bags, which are also plastic bags impossible to recycle and will fill our landfills.

Or second, 100% recycled paper bags that require tremendous amounts of energy and water to produce and recycle. We believe there is a better solution. The better approach is to amend SB 1053 so that the 40% post-consumer resin reusable plastic film bags are integrated into the extended producer responsibility, SB 54, legislation passed in '22. Continuing the use of reusable 40% post-consumer resin film bags is simple and non-disruptive solution that will allow Californians to use and recycle them with other plastics.

Without these bags, the collection bins will vanish given the lack of volume. In closing, we look forward to working with this Committee to put in place the most effective and lasting program that will reduce, reuse and recycle plastic waste across the state. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Chair and esteemed Members of the Environmental Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding Senate Bill 1053. My name is Phil Rozenski, and I serve as the Interim Director of the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance. The ARPBA represents manufacturers and recyclers of film plastic retail bags, including members with operations in California. I am here on their behalf to express our opposition to the proposed legislation. The ARPBA shares the goals of 1053, protecting and improving the environment.

But let me be clear, this Bill will not reduce plastic. It will merely shift Californians to other plastic bags that result in significantly more plastic consumption. After a substantially similar bill was passed in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and several other states, that's exactly what happened. The ban on traditional plastic bags resulted in states adopting non-woven polypropylene bags as a new option, which led to a 300% increase in plastic consumption, a 500% rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, studies have shown that on average, these non-woven polypropylene bags are only used two to three times before being discarded. They are simply not used the number of times needed to make them environmentally beneficial. Current law requires today's plastic film bags in California contain 40% certified post-consumer recycled content. According to CalRecycle data cited today, these bags divert 183 million pounds of plastic from landfills every year to support their manufacturing.

In contrast, non-woven polypropylene bags rarely contain any recycled content and are not recyclable in California. If SB 1053 passes, the thick recyclable plastic reusable bags currently mandated by the state would cease to exist. Passing the Bill would likely trigger an increased plastic use. Eliminating the use of 183 million pounds of recycled content, exacerbate carbon footprints, move jobs out of California, and raise the costs on working families. I can't emphasize enough this Bill is structured not to reduce plastic, but to substitute plastic.

We urge you to vote against it, and we invite collaboration to create a more effective solution. We thank you for your attention and consideration.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, other folks who want to express concerns about the Bill or opposition, if you could just come to the mic and express your tell us your name and affiliation.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, the Recycling Partnership and Western Plastics Association, opposed unless amended.

Ryan Elaine, on behalf of the California Retailers Association. Still no official position. Have concerns about working with the author's office. Thank you.

Brian Niles, Crown Poly, California Company, opposed.

Hello. Trey Johnson from API also opposed.

Good morning, Mister Chairman. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Erin Hall with the American Forest and Paper Association, opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Carol Patterson with the Food Service Packaging Institute, opposed.

Lauren Aguilar, on behalf of the Flexible Packaging Association, opposed unless amended.

Kris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association, opposed.

Thank you very much. All right. We'll bring the item back to the Committee for discussion. I'd like to first start by asking the author to maybe respond to some of the opposition concerns about.

Yes, I'm happy to.

Plastic use and, you know, whether this might trigger more plastic.

Yes. Thank you. Let's just level set here. There's no obligation that grocery stores try to find new loopholes. So the idea that they're going to try to find a thicker plastic that can somehow slip through this regulation, and then consumers will use that and it will lead to more plastic in landfills. You know, what this Bill says is that grocery stores and places that sell food can sell for 10 cents a paper bag.

And we're still happy to work on the definition of what percentage is recyclable in paper. So a paper bag or a reusable bag that is cloth that is meant to be reused 300 times. So, you know, the reason that we're in this position in the first place is that constituents in California, voters in California voted to ban plastic bags, and they thought they were doing that.

But then because of this loophole that was basically allowed the allowance of exploiting the notion that a thicker plastic bag counted as reusable and recyclable when in fact, it's not reused and it's not recycled, and 10 years has shown us that. We're trying to close that loophole. So, I mean, my hope would be that there would be operating in good faith to say, hey, why don't we, as grocery stores, why don't we just stock paper bags and then actually have cloth reusable bags?

That, and we'll message as we were supposed, as the law says there is supposed to be messaging and education about, please bring your reusable bag. It is sanitary, it is better for the environment. We're happy to help you pack it. You know, all the reality of what does it mean to try to use less of a single-use approach and more of a reusable approach?

And so, you know, I would say some of the reflections on what other states are doing in New Jersey, they banned the paper bags, too, and they don't charge any money for them. So in California, we are saying paper bags are acceptable for grocery stores to provide customers to carry their groceries, and there's a cost associated with it. So I would just suggest that that doesn't have to be the foregone conclusion.

And we're trying to make the definition of a reusable bag clear enough that it's not going to be filled with more plastic. It's going to be actually cloth and reusable, and people will reuse it.

Okay, thank you. Other questions? Thoughts? Comments from the Committee? Yes, Vice Chair.

Oh, God. Where to start? So, first of all, I was here 10 years ago when we did whatever it was, SB 271, I think it was, and I voted against that Bill. Was it 271?

270. And why did I vote against the Bill? Not because I don't think we should recycle. I think we should recycle bags totally.

No. 270.

And I come from an area where we have a lot of trees, and I like paper bags because trees make paper bags. That helps the industry in my district. But I want to just call some things out here that really have happened in the last 10 years and why I'm frustrated with our lack of actually doing the right thing. What is the right thing? Number one, the environmental community came out and supported SB 270, and so did the grocers. And why?

They were at oppositions to start with, because the grocers have a license to take up, make a lot of money. They get to charge $0.10 for a bag they buy for a penny or half a cent or penny and a half. So that's profits. They were not supportive until they could make the money. The enviros came on, said, yeah, just charge more money and that'll divert people from using the bags. And so everybody was happy. But we did. What did we do?

Nothing for the environment. We didn't have any of the money going to towards recycling or cleaning up the bags. That's where we were. So here we are, 10 years later. I happen to use the plastic bags. It depends on what I'm buying when I buy those bags. If I'm putting meat in there, chicken, I don't want to reuse my bag because I don't want to get my family sick later.

And I also shop at Trader Joe's, who has, which I voted for an Eggman Bill that has a compostable recyclable bag, which I can put my chicken in. When I throw it away, it goes away. So we have some options out there that we don't use, and we end up with these pieces of legislation that, quite frankly, are just picking winners and losers and not really fixing the total problem. I use the heavier plastic bags in my bathroom. That's where I put in my little can.

And then it gets fold up. I tie it off and throw it in this waste. That's probably why it's not getting recycled. So I have a question. First of the grocers, are you getting the bags back? You're supposed to take those bags back. And what's happening with the recycled content that you said we were doing prior to COVID? And can you maybe get in the weeds a little bit more on that.

Through the chair, Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, Louie Brown, on behalf of California Groceries Association, there is no requirement in state law as of right now that we actually take the bags back, Senator. We do have about 40% of our industry, the best we can tell, that does take those bags back. Now it's up in the air and our members will tell you on all sides whether or not they can actually find someone that will actually come and take those bags back.

Some put it with the other film that they collect. And we do recycle a lot of film plastic through the back of our stores, but not all reclaimers, not all recyclers are available to take that. So it is all across the board. But there is no requirement for us to take those bags back. We are seeing significant litigation over this issue on our members. When we ask CalRecycle to take a position to help in those lawsuits, they will not do so.

They do not claim that these bags are recyclable, which leaves us in the untenable position of having to come and work on issues like this. It's litigation environment. It's other issues that are driving to us. And to one other point, we're not making millions of dollars on this issue, Senator. We are required by law to utilize those funds to cover the cost of the bags, provide education, and also provide other options. In the last 10 years, the price of these bags have gone way up.

If we move towards only paper, we're looking at bags that, depending on the size of the store and whether or not you put print and advertisement it, whether or not you put handles, paper bags that are anywhere from 11 to 15 cents apiece. This is not a profit generator for stores. It may have been back in 2014 when we started this and we had the transition. It is no longer.

Well, thank you for that. So do we have anybody from CalRecycle that could tell us why we're not recycling these bags? I mean, at the end of the day, if we're supposed to try to.

I mean, that's a big problem. I mean there's, around the world it's very hard to properly, I mean I know there's a couple programs out there, but it's pretty paltry. But I see you shaking your head. If you got alternative information for us, I'm happy to have you answer.

Mister Chairman, Committee Members, I can invite you to come up to Oroville, which is apparently in California. We have a site where we are producing bags, but we are also recycling on sites. So we have a recycling facility, a small one, where we recycle our resin and then use it to produce bags.

Again, what's your answer as to why such a miniscule percentage of the plastic bags in the state are getting recycled?

As you can hear, I'm not American, I'm European. And I give a simple example. If I'm looking to my household in Austria and in Italy, compare it now to the U.S. I have in front of my house I have three bins and in proximity I have another five bins. I'm separating glass, I'm separating paper, I'm separating organics, I'm separating and I put together all the flexible packaging. I don't distinguish between one and the other.

I have aluminum and then it's for me if I'm in Austria in the trash bin, there is nothing because what I'm doing and my child is doing it in the morning. We are separating the waste. We have a bag with the organic waste. We are putting the organic in the organic bin, taking then the bag and throwing it into flexible packaging. We have the flexible packaging and I have also my plastic bag here. Put everything in and then putting into the flexible packaging.

I have my paper, I put it.

Right. Single-streaming versus multi-streaming.

And it works.

Yeah. What percentage of your products are actually getting recycled?

So of our products, I only can tell you what we put in for those shopper bags out of which are produced for corrosives, 40%. And as said, we are also recycling on site.

And you're a plastic bag manufacturer?

We have recycler and plastic bag manufacturer in Oroville.

And you're telling me that 40% of your plastic bags are getting recycled?

I'm telling that 40% of the content of the plastic bags is recycled.

I mean that's got to be 70 times higher than any other company and still below 50%. But that's great. I mean I'm glad to hear that that's happening. One of the problems we have in this space is just there's been so little progress on this topic, and we do hear about one off great examples.

I would really kindly ask you if we could put the plastic bags to all the flexible packaging and encourage the consumers to put them in the bins as I'm doing it in Europe. It's not rocket science. I can invite you to come over to Austria, to Germany, to Italy, wherever you want to go, and you can see that those things are collected. And I think that's the big lag. If I compare it now to California, to others, is to collection of the waste.

Okay. I know both of you on the ask. I know Brian just thought of some more questions, but.

Senator, if I could. So not only am I the Interim Director for ARPBA, I work for Novolex. We are a plastic retail bag manufacturer and recycler here in the United States. We, as an ARPBA Association did research back in December because we've always struggled to get these bags back. We have. Very few of them come back, and very few of them will ever come back. What we've learned and what your data is showing you from, from CalRecycle is we've surveyed consumers.

Consumers are buying these bags. They're telling us, consumers told us during all this high inflation, when groceries were going up, the lower your income, the more likely you are to buy these bags. I can't stress that enough, and there's a reason for it. The law requires them to be 2.25 mils thick. The average garbage bag is 0.75. The law also requires them to hold four gallons. Typical kitchen garbage bags are 8 and 12 gallons. They cost 25 cents and 35 cents.

Two of these cost 20. You save 5 cents on trash bags. Three of them cost 30 cents. You save 5 cents on your trash bags. People are telling us, because they're so robust compared to a trash bag, they're using them as trash bags and that's why they're going to landfill. It's not that people don't want to recycle them. There's many, not many left. Consumers told, told us in a survey in December of this year in California, over 60% of what they're buying are being reused, likely higher.

The way the question was asked, we couldn't get fidelity on it. So over 60% of the bags are being purchased and reused as trash bags, which is why we're seeing them in the landfill. The company I work for, Novolex, we have three partners in California, and we bring bales back for recycling. These are not bag recycling programs. They're film recycling programs. We collect all kinds of consumer film back at the house. Stuff from grocery stores.

The bags are made with 40% recycled content by law in California. That's something. Maybe we can look at an alternative for this laws to increase that. Because whether it's a bag or other film, it's plastic pulled out of the landfill. SB 270 has been a massive success. There have been multiple recyclers that have been established in the U.S. 183 million pounds. A good size recycler, maybe just 25 million pounds a year.

You're talking seven or eight companies that go out of business and this all grew out of this.

By everything that's not recycled. Mark, did you have some comments too?

Yeah. Mister Chairman Members agreement with Mister Rozenski's last comments. But I think it underscores why these bags are not a reusable bag. They're not being reused by the consumer as a reusable bag.

Are you saying that people are using them as trash bags?

They are. That's not source reducing the amount of plastic that we're generating. The objective of this policy was to source reduce the amount of plastic that we're generating. These thicker reusable bags are not meeting that test. People are not reusing them as a grocery bag. As a result, we're generating more and more of these bags. Frankly, we're generating more of these bags than we would, than any consumer would need as trash bags for their bathrooms or their kitchens.

It's an immense amount of these bags, more that could be used as trash bags. They're talking about the recycled content requirement, not recyclability of these bags, post-consumer recyclability of these bags. The material that they're using in making those bags here in California and in Europe and Mister Rozenski's facility are not the plastic bags that consumers are generating. They're the plastic film from the back of the grocery store. They're not recycling post-consumer film. They have not been successful in recycling plastic film in California.

And it's their own fault because they are the reclaimers. They are the purchasers of the film from the grocery stores and they're paying the grocery stores for that clean, pristine plastic film from the back of the grocery stores. The shrink wrap. They're not paying the grocery stores when they load in the same post-consumer material. So they've had a producer responsibility chance to demonstrate post-consumer plastic film recycling in California and they failed.

And what's your sense of the success of the post consumer recycling plastic recycling in Europe? That was just alluded to.

I'm not seeing post-consumer film recycling success in Europe. I am seeing collection programs for post consumer film, but I'm not seeing recycling mechanical recycling as we define recycling in California as being a success in Europe. Europe has been more welcoming of other types of technologies that consume plastic and turn it into energy or other products. We are not supporting those technologies here in California.

Okay. I'm sorry, sorry for hijacking, but you asked a good question.

This is exactly, well, I mean, I'm frustrated. I want to recycle and I do. It depends on what I'm buying. And I like paper normally is what I try to use. But in some circumstances I use the heavier bags and I, then I reuse them is exactly what he's saying. I use them for garbage and then I, it saves me money on my garbage purchase of the big bags and I just throw it in with whatever's in it goes into my, regular garbage bin.

So I want to ask the Senator then. So would you be amending your Bill to do away with all polypropylene bags? That's the, yeah, I want to make sure I say it right.

So we, so if you're trying to get that out of the waste stream, we should take it out then, right?

Yeah. I mean, it's, it's strengthening the definition of what is a reusable bag. Because right now this is how, how these thicker plastic bags are ending up there in the first place is they're qualifying as reusable but they're not being reused and they're not recyclable.

Well, they're not being reused for what you want them to reuse it for. You want them to reuse it as a grocery bag but they're reusing it for something else. That's what I do. I don't take it back to this grocery store and reuse the bag I bought at the grocery store, but I do recycle it. So the alternative is what makes you think that the consumer or the person that's in the, is going to reuse this one 300 times?

What makes you have confidence that that's actually going to happen?

The point of the Bill is to say, let's actually create a reusable bag. I mean, I think all of us have probably purchased those at some point or been given them as free giveaways and have them in the back of your car sometimes, which you may or may not use. But so what is that? What does that feel? What is it that it is made of? How. How long does it last? Exactly.

So that's why cloth or woven textile washable meets the fabric weight of 80 grams/m² not made from plastic film. You know, all of these definitions of like, what is a reusable bag so that we don't end up with the same, even thicker plastic bag.

And just, I have a couple of responses to some of the things that I've said, if you don't mind, Joe.

Sure, please.

So one of them is that I just want to be clear that this Bill does not address the issue of the plastic bags you put your meat or your produce in. So anything that's happening in the market where you are wanting to make sure that there's proper hygiene, that those bags are still allowed, this Bill doesn't address that. And to the point of this is being reused or recycled in these other ways by using it in your trash cans and things.

Of course, there is some percentage where that is happening, and there are people who are picking up pet waste as well with these bags. But do you need a large grocery bag to pick up this amount of pet waste? So there's some amount of that that's happening. But if you look at the reality of waste haulers are hiring people to stand next to conveyor belts and pick out plastic bags.

And because they gum up the recycling that they're trying to do, of the things that are actually recyclable, plastic bags are blowing around in landfills. And landfills will have fences erected not to keep people out or other things from getting in, but to keep the plastic bags from blowing everywhere. And you'll see them all blown up against the sides of these landfills. Plastic bags are a scourge. So the fact that some people are reusing them, in some cases, I do it, too.

My bathroom trash right now has one of those bags in it. But that doesn't mean that that's the system that we want, because that happens to some degree. I mean, this program is not designed. The idea that this is how we're subsidizing lower income people to be able to buy cheaper grocery bags or waste bags like that, just to me, it just seems like it's such a stretch to justify what we're currently doing with that explanation.

We get bags at the grocery store, we can either, do you like Trader Joe's, where they only offer paper? You can do like Costco, where they offer these big containers that are cardboard, essentially, and you can take your stuff home that way. Or at supermarkets. If you start to do a survey of what are supermarkets doing, they are usually offering you one or the other plastic or paper. And this Bill is simply saying, let's just have paper.

And you can also buy a reusable bag if you want. You know, grocery stores selling them, they could sell them for more than $0.10 if they want to. The reusable bags. I think largely they are more than that. I know the one I bought at the co op here a couple weeks ago in Sacramento was $7, the reusable one. And I'm happy to have that. And it's a great bag that I'm reusing. But grocery stores are selling everything in their market for a profit.

They're selling things. That is what they do. So the fact that they would sell a bag for more money, that you would reuse far more than 300 times, to me, that's okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think one of the reasons that grocers are on board with this is that they see that consumers have had it with this, that they passed a law 10 years ago. They wanted to reduce plastic. The grocery stores don't need it.

It doesn't actually add anything of value to what they're doing. So, you know, let's simplify, let's do what's right for the environment. Let's protect our communities. Let's move over to having reusable bags that are truly reusable, that are cloth, like this one here that our Member has with her, or let's have paper bags.

Okay? Any further questions? Yeah. All right, I'm sensing a. So let's establish a quorum, first of all, because I know we've got four.

Members here now [Roll Call]

And as you may have noted, we welcome our friend and colleague Bob Archuleta, who is replacing Senator Hurtado today at the Committee. So. Yes, exactly. That's right. That's right. So we very much appreciate. Welcome to EQ. Okay. Thank you for the robust discussion. I know this Bill is a long and winding road ahead, but certainly good discussion, really good discussion. This is an area of great complexity, as many of us know.

And yet I certainly applaud the author's efforts in trying to address the core waste challenges associated with this issue, and it's really going to support the Bill today. So Senator Menjivar, I think, has moved the Bill, and we will give you the opportunity to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1053. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, so that's. We'll leave that open for others to add on. Why don't we let you now go to item 4, 1167?

Okay, thank you. So this is a Bill on a similar topic. I appreciate. Hello. Welcome. So, as was highlighted during my previous build presentation, single use consumption is attributed to a growing problem of waste that is harming our planet. When we are talking about addressing waste, we frequently hear reduce, reuse, recycle. And it's really important that we remember the first two words of that. Reduce and reuse instead of immediately jumping to the recycle.

Because reduce and reuse are really important parts of how we're trying to get to our goals. So when dining inside of a restaurant, inside of a restaurant, there is no reason to be provided with single use cups that end up in landfills. So this is unnecessary and it contributes to the pollution that is suffocating our planet. Although cups are often marketed as being recyclable, many of the paper ones are actually lined with plastic and others are just plastic. And they are very difficult to recycle.

This legislation would reduce 110,000 to 225,000 disposable wear and prevent 1300 to 2200 pounds of single use trash from entering the waste stream. Some opponents may claim that this law is costly or difficult for businesses to follow, but that is actually not true. Case studies show that transitioning to reusable food and beverageware can save a small business between $3,000 and $22,000 each year.

So not only would be switching to reusable cups be financially sensible, but studies show that it's more environmentally sustainable than recycling disposable cups and will result in a significant reduction in carbon emissions. Simply requiring larger chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide a reusable cup for those who dine in is not a tall order. Yet the impact will be significant. And I'll say that Starbucks is already doing this.

So if you are having a coffee inside of Starbucks, they aren't giving you a reusable cup and not giving it to you in a single use cup. Several cities have passed or introduced ordinances that address this very problem. And we are hoping to replicate this here with the focus on the first of the two R's, reduce and reuse. With that, I would like to introduce my two witnesses in support. Oakland City Council Member Dan Kalb. Thank you for coming, Dan and Alison.

Waliszewski, Director of Policy and Programs for 5 Gyres Institute. Thank you for coming. Chair, is it okay if they begin?

Thank you, Senators, chair Allen and esteemed Members of this Committee. My name is Alison and I'm with the 5 Gyres Institute, a science based group in Santa Monica that's been at the forefront of plastic pollution for over 15 years. I also serve as the co chair of Reusable LA, a coalition of 30 groups that champion reuse for for on site dining in Los Angeles.

Along with our fellow Bill co sponsor Heal the Bay, SB 54 has ushered in a powerful new era of waste reduction, and SB 1167 builds upon the foundation laid by SB 54 by targeting a specific and pervasive source of plastic pollution. Single use cups in chain restaurants already over 20 jurisdictions across California have implemented reuse for dine-in, while SB 54 will ensure that food service ware, including cups, will be truly recyclable or compostable.

We must change both consumer and restaurant behavior to reuse for on site dining to prevent this type of waste at its source. Every year, businesses and city government spend 6 billion on waste management costs attributable to disposable foodware packaging. At 5 Gyres we recently published an updated global estimate that there are 170 trillion pieces of plastic plastic afloat in the worlds ocean and locally in LA, Heal the Bay trash cleanup volunteers have collected 140,000 disposable plastic cups and lids in the region since 2001.

SB 1167 would not only address single use cups in the environment, but this Bill is also an incredible measure to safeguard the public health of 40 million residents in our state. Disposable hot cups often include a mix of polymers that include processing aids, heat, heat, stabilizers and other toxic additives. They are lined with thin layers of plastic that can leach chemicals like polyethylene and polylactic acid or shed microplastics into the beverage.

If a customer were to consume three cups of a hot beverage in one of these, they would be exposed to 75,000 microplastic particles. Reusable cups would prevent this type of exposure. SB 1167 presents a practical solution to this pressing issue. Thank you again to the Committee for your ongoing leadership in combating plastic pollution in this state. I urge you, chair Allen, and esteemed Members of this Committee, to please vote aye on 1167. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Dan, nice to see you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Allen, honorable Senators, my name is Dan Kalb. I'm a Member of the Oakland City Council. I'm before you today to express my full support for SB 1167, a crucial step towards addressing the urgent related issues of plastic pollution and climate change. As author of Oakland's new reusable foodware policy and a Member of the Stop Waste board in Alameda County, I worked in coalition to create a cornerstone of an ambitious effort to move away from an unsustainable disposable economy.

Similarly, at a larger scale, of course, the chair's leadership on SB 54 marked a profound shift towards a more circular economy and an even greater shift away from certain disposables. That this Bill embodies is a logical next step to further reducing plastic pollution and litter in our communities, throughout every community in our state.

As you know, the disposable culture perpetuated by single use foodware, including plastic cups, has led to a staggering plastic pollution crisis, with millions of metric tons of plastic entering our oceans each year across much of the state. This, as much of the state disposable foodware accounts for a significant portion of the litter that pollutes our streets and waterways. This not only harms wildlife, but also poses health risks to humans as microplastics contaminate our water sources and the food chain.

Transitioning to reusables as this Bill helps make happen benefits the environment and ultimately, according to data from Rethink, disposable, significantly predictable, provides a significant opportunity for financial savings for many food service businesses. Passing 1167 would reduce litter and carbon emissions, helping the state achieve its adopted zero waste goals and create a more sustainable future for generations to come. I respectfully urge your I vote on SB 1167 to further combat plastic pollution and our contribution to climate change.

Together we can make a real difference in the health of our communities. Thank you for your time and for your good work.

Thank you. Thank you to you both. Anyone who else who wants to weigh in in support of the Bill?

Good morning Mister chair Members. Elizabeth Espinoza here today in support on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi Kristin Gorey, on behalf of the California Compost Coalition in support

Miho Ligare, on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and Heal The Bay, in strong support.

Thank you.

Karen Lang on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, in support.

Charles Miller on behalf of the Los Angeles Climate Reality Project and the San Fernando Valley Climate Reality Project, in support.

Megan Shumway on behalf of Third Act and Sacramento 350 in support.

Cynthia Shallot on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong

Christina Scaringe on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity and Support.

Krystal Raynes on behalf of Californians Against Waste co sponsors of this measure in support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California, the Glendale Environmental Coalition, the California Coalition of Climate Reality Project, and Santa Clara Climate Action Network in support. Thank you.

Christina Hildebrand, on behalf of a Voice for Choice Advocacy and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Barger, Director of True Zero Waste Program with the US Green Building Council in full support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, opposition witnesses, maybe you guys can move over to the chairs over here. Yeah. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mister chair Members Dawn Koepke with McHugh, Koepke, and Padron, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in regretful opposition to Senate Bill 1167. As many of you may be aware, CMTA's membership is very diverse, representing all of the material types in the packaging space, including fiber, plastic, metal, as well as glass, as well as the manufacturers producers that utilize those materials in single use packaging. Single use food serviceware.

That put CMTA and its Members in a very unique position in 2022 of working with this Committee and a variety of stakeholders to come to a landmark agreement under Senate Bill 54. That Bill notably not only covered single use packaging, it also covers, as you'll recall, single use food serviceware and plastics within that as well. CMTA came to that negotiating table in good faith to negotiate that agreement.

And as part of that agreement, there was a clear agreement that we would not seek to ban materials in single use food serviceware, but rather put together a process that would enable those materials to prove that they are not only just capable of being recycled, but actually recycled and or compostable. Additionally, that law, landmark law, also provided some key elements when it comes to source reduction, not only just for plastic single use packaging, but plastic single use food serviceware as well.

So in that regard, those source reduction requirements do provide for limiting over time plastic single use food serviceware, including cups, beverage vessels that are the subject of this Bill that may contain or be made of plastic. Ultimately, we feel CMTA and its Members do have great concerns about Senate Bill 1167, as we have shared with the author.

Given that we did come to the table negotiating SB 54 in good faith and believe that it is a robust framework to address the subject matter of this specific we would respectfully request the Committee to vote no on this Bill in deference to that landmark agreement that is only just getting underway with the regulations currently in the formal rulemaking process. So for those reasons, we must remain respectfully opposed to SB 1167. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Committee Members Pat Joyce, KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Restaurant Association and respectful opposition to SB 1167. The CRA has been a productive partner in this building to reduce, excuse me, a productive partner in this building for environmental policy for many years and is proud of the progress the statewide restroom community has made. For instance, the CRA helped create a statewide model to reduce waste, ensuring single use food service accessories are upon request and voluntary and not automatic.

The CRA worked productively again on larger efforts led by Senator Allen to establish regulatory frameworks to evaluate exactly what food packaging can and can't be used throughout the state, including single use vessels targeted by SB 1167. And Mister chair, your SB 1335 created a robust regulatory framework for calorie cycle to determine what is acceptable for foodware use for restaurants operating on state properties, including state office buildings, parks and beaches. And of course, the landmark SB 54 historical accomplishment where the ink isn't even dry yet.

And the state entity charged with implementing this new law just extended the public comment period for greater engagement. And if I can just mention one implementation challenge with SB 1167, restaurants generally do not own the building they occupy and as such, can't independently make construction related changes to their physical footprint. For instance, installing a dishwasher, additional storage would be a challenge, and an unintended consequence is, under SB 1167, a restaurant guest would use a reusable drinking vessel for on site drinking.

But if they want to leave, they might grab a single use cup and fill it up and go to the car, so they're still going to be using it. SB 1167 would result in restaurants using more water and energy with the additional dishwashing that would be necessary, and those factors should be considered.

While restaurants targeted by 1167 are generally under larger brand names, the reality is that many of those are individual neighborhood restaurant operators, the same ones currently struggling to deal with the recent increase in labor cost, such as the overnight $4 minimum wage increase that just took effect on April 1. For these reasons and other reasons, we strongly oppose SB 1167 and respectfully ask for your no vote today. Thank you.

All right, thank you, folks. Who want to weigh in? In opposition.

Mister chair. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, in opposition. Thank you.

Paul Gladfelty, excuse me, Paul Gladfelty, on behalf of the California Alliance of Family Owned Business. We are opposed to this Bill. Strongly opposed the Bill. We'd like SB 54 to work, and that's our opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Hall with the American Forest and Paper Association also in opposition.

Emilia Zamani with the California Travel Association in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Matthew Kaggle with the International Franchise Association. Opposed.

Carol Patterson with the Food Service Packaging Institute. Also in opposition.

Lauren Aguilar on behalf of Ameripen, which is the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment. Also in opposition.

Kris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association. Opposition.

Mike Kopulsky with Frontline Safety opposition, Public Health to protect the workers.

Good morning, Mister chair. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce and Opposition.

Good morning. Jonathan Choi with Dart Container Corporation respectfully oppose.

Okay, well, I'll bring the item back to the Committee. I'll just start out with some comments. And I first of all, want to thank the author very much for her commitment to addressing plastic pollution. We just saw that in the last Bill. This Bill, certainly. I also just want to point out that Senator Blakespear has been a real champion on internal practices within our capital on this topic.

And so I'm just really glad to have see that we have new Members coming in that care so much about this. This is, of course, an issue that's been really near and dear to my heart. As has been mentioned, SB 54 was the product of really many years of constructive conversations and negotiations with both environmental and industry stakeholders, plus our local governments, who, of course, were there from the very beginning.

And its passage signals a really strong commitment on the part of the state to solutions that address our growing plastic pollution crisis that we've been discussing today. A couple things to note.

In addition to setting really ambitious targets, requiring all covered materials to be recyclable were compostable by 2032, and requiring producers to reduce the amount of plastic coming onto the market by 25%, this big source reduction requirement that no one else in the world has. The bills also created this important pollution mitigation Fund that's going to be generating half $1.0 billion per year for 10 years. And that's certainly something that we're proud of.

A key goal with the Bill always was to create a holistic framework for tackling packaging and foodware pollution instead of one off measures. And of course, being comprehensive led to that, really required robust negotiation and engagement. And I know that the folks who joined us in that effort came to the table as I did, in good faith.

And thanks to the ongoing commitment from a lot of the folks in the room on both sides and so many others. CalRecycle is now in a robust process of implementing SB 54 and setting us on a path toward the goals that we had with that Bill. So I remain really committed to what we accomplished. And I think that we, I really sincerely believe that we created a truly transformative program through the months, and if not, well, yeah, months of painstaking negotiations.

So the author knows this. I think folks from the support side know that. This just puts me in a really uncomfortable position, because I think in a non 54 world I would be voting for something like this. But given my role in 54, I just don't feel comfortable supporting the Bill I'm going to be laying off today. Though I certainly encourage Members to evaluate this question for themselves, I want to be really clear.

The work here is certainly not done, and especially around areas such as source reduction and transitioning to reusable and refillable alternatives. We've got all these great grassroots organizations who were co sponsors of this Bill. The Reusable LA Coalition, they're doing a lot of great work, as I know Dan's doing in Oakland, to push locally for reuse policies, and they see dine in as the most logical next step. And that makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is.

I agree, this is low hanging fruit for industries to achieve their mandates under SB 54. And I sincerely believe and hope that these groups will catalyze this transition. And I certainly see this as a kind of first area for work with 54, regardless of what happens with this Bill. So I just wanted to make sure folks understood where I was coming from. I know the author knows all this, but I'm very interested in hearing.

I'm sorry, Chair, would you mind if we just respond to the SB 54 part before everyone else makes their comments? Would that be okay?

Sure.

And I wanted to invite Alison to as well, because her organization helped negotiate SB 54. SB 54 is clearly transformational, foundational. We're so grateful that you and all the partners came together to make that happen. I see that this Bill, SB 1167, builds upon that foundation of SB 54. I just want to point out a couple things. So, chain restaurants are, by definition, not producers under SB 54. So they're not required to use reusable products. So that's not something that will be coming if we wait a few years.

the disposable cup producers could meet the source requirements in SB 54 in various ways, such as making their cups thinner or lighter. So I see this Bill as sharing the same ultimate goals of reducing plastic waste and focusing on that, on this very specific chain restaurants that have over 20 branches dining in for cups only. So, you know, this is aiming to be this very specific thing. And I'd like to invite Allison to also address the SB 54 part.

Yeah, but. Okay, well, first of all, it is covered material under the Bill. We had kind of point house source reduction that could. That was part of our whole source reduction aspect of the Bill, and it was really thoroughly negotiated. So I. I'm. This is a little unusual how we're doing this, but I'm happy to hear your response, and I do want to hear from the numbers.

But I. If that's not my understanding of where the Bill, where 54 landed but you certainly were involved and love to hear your perspective.

Thank you. Senator Allen and Senator Blakespear. First, I would just like to underscore that this Bill is about bringing reuse and a thriving culture of reuse and refill across the, the State of California. So that, that underscores the intentionality behind this Bill. And as you yourself said, Senator Allen and Senator Blakespear, this is the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to reuse, just having folks simply use reusable cups when they are dining in.

So we really want to underscore that key point and that ultimately we also don't view this Bill as a ban on single use disposable cups, but we're creating an opportunity for both customers and restaurants to build a cultural change into using reusables. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Let's open up. But we were really, the issue that the center brings up is a valid one. It was why we were always concerned to bring everybody along the chain into responsibility under 54. So this wasn't so, yes, the producers are perhaps the most responsible, but we folks at the retail and the restaurant level were brought in, too, and it's part of why there was a lot of consternation initially.

So anyhow, let me go to the Vice Chair, and I know everyone has comments and thoughts.

Well, first, as somebody who worked years on 54 and actually bipartisan support for 54, I think that we need to give it an opportunity to get through the process, number one. Number two, we just hammered restaurants with the $20 an hour minimum wage, and we're going to add now dishwashing and all this extra work for them. And quite frankly, I think what the opposition talked about with it being they rent a building, they have to retrofit. They're not set up to do that.

They basically, you know, I think about In-N-Out or one of those places that you go through, you can dine in or you can get it to go. So I think that's a burden that is typical of California, that we're going to just go for it no matter what. We're going to save the environment, doesn't matter what, you know, our business model. And that's, we just keep going. We have a process. Place number two, Bill's going to be implemented in 2025.

That's very short from now to get, to get it done. And on number three, it's going to allow local governments to go out and be the police and fine them up to $300. I think it was 300 a year. And that money goes to the local government. So now you got a position where you got the business that's trying to do what's right, and you got a local government out there finding them. And the money doesn't go to help the environment.

It just goes to their coffers. I mean, I can't support this Bill at all. It's too much, too fast. And I just think it sets the wrong precedence. You're not welcome in California. You can't run your business in California. We're going to tell you how to do everything. And at the same time, when we did a bipartisan approach to SB 54.

Let it take a break. Take a break and just let them get through the process for a while to where we start just regulation. We are losing thousands of businesses out of California because we just overregulate, and they're going to other places and they're shipping their products in here. It's happening to my business. And I think it's ironic. We had to send 150 CHP officers to Oakland, and this is the top priority whether you wash a cup or not.

It's crazy. So I'm voting no.

I mean, to fair the author. It's a very modest fine. Yeah, $300 a year. But certainly your issues about the process I share. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. I want to reiterate what the Chair said in the beginning. The reason why we have reusable cups right behind us, we no longer have plastic water bottles, is because the Senator, in her year and a half, has drastically changed how we approach recycling here for the Senate. So she is a leader in this space, 100%. And I'm not here to disagree that this isn't an important topic. It is, 100%. And the previous Bill that you brought up, it's another.

It's another move towards ensuring that we're protecting our planet and we're reducing single use plastic. And I did support that Bill and happy to do that. But this Bill, I may not. I don't agree with the Vice Chair regarding the regulations. I think we do need some regulations. However, there is currently a system with SB 54 to address those regulations. And I think just last month in March, there was the Department released draft regulations for SB 54.

So we are just one month into some draft regulations for how SB 54 is going to work. I'm excited for that to come to fruition. I want to make sure we're reducing by 25%. And I think it was an approach to remove the whack-a-mole approach that oftentimes we hear here in EQ related to PFAS and so many other things where with SB 54, it was an umbrella approach, different stakeholders coming together.

The Senator and I. Senator knows that I can't support this Bill because I do think it will hinder or impede with the work that is going to be done with SB 54. I'm all for bringing down regulations and ensuring everyone's at the table, but we did that already with SB 54. I want to see how it works. And the Senator, you will still be here in years to come if SB 54 does not produce the fruit that we want it to produce.

And we'll have the opportunity to come back and do cleanup Bill for SB 54. But I think it is too premature this time around.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Okay, yeah, very much appreciate the discussion. And by the way, I mean, I agree that the whack-a-mole, we're trying to go to more comprehensive. Right. You mentioned PFAS, and we just passed the Skinner Bill out on that issue, which I think we're all hoping will get some legs. And the challenge here, there's this conceptual idea behind EPR, which is something that we just spent hours and hours negotiating during these conversations. How do we approach source reduction?

And should we dictate to producers what should be reusable, or should we let them do it on their own? They want a discretion. And then. So in return, we put in place really strict targets, including reuse and refill targets. I certainly hope and believe that this will be an area where the restaurants and the producers will. I think ultimately they'll get behind something similar to what you proposed here.

But the system that we set up, of course, lets them drive that in return for these really strict accountability measures. Anyway, that's where I am. I think everybody knows it. I really do. I sincerely appreciate the Senators leadership in this area. And I know we're going to be working really closely together ensuring that there's, that we continue to really push on this plastic pollution issue that's so important. And with that, I'd love to give you the opportunity to close.

Yes, thank you. So I just want to say that I very much appreciate SB 54 and the extended producer responsibility framework. I think I've said this in other committees, and I have other bills this year on extended producer responsibility for marine flares. And the reality that the externalities of managing waste are there. And the question is, who is going to be responsible for it, and are we going to allow it to pollute our environment and to such a degree before we act.

So I'm really eager for SB 54 to kick in. The extended timeframe that we now have from our public involvement means it's, you know, further delayed before we see some things that are maybe more specific. But I think the reality is that we are increasingly a single use, high consumption society, and we are not changing that in our practices. And you see that with the things like the plastic bag use.

You see it with chain restaurants that used to serve, they used to have dine in that was actually on a plate, and they have transitioned to 100% trash landfilling. So you'll get a meal, a hamburger, hot dog, or not hot dog, but French fries, salads, and it's all on plates with forks and napkins and little containers of pepper and salt and little things of ketchup, and everything just goes straight from being eaten, and seven minutes later, it's all going to the landfill.

And, you know, we had that here at the state capital, here at the Legislature, where we weren't providing pitchers of water, we're providing plastic water bottles. Here at the state Legislature in California, they're supposed to be an environmental leader.

And I just, to me, this Bill is really rooted in the idea that I see that dystopian future where individual households are making the decision that restaurants are making, where instead of doing dishes and spending time to wash and eat things on real plates, they're putting everything into the landfill because we've made it cheap and it's easier and it's convenient. And why would we wash dishes at home when we could put everything out into the waste for someone else to deal with at some other time?

So I know when I served as the mayor in the City of Encinitas, we banned styrofoam in restaurants. And we had some initial feedback from restaurants when it was proposed that said, well, we're going to serve our bagels, and they're going to be so messy with sauce and cheese and everything, and consumers won't like that. We have to use styrofoam. And when we did it anyway, they adapted. No, restaurants run out of business.

Every restaurant is serving it in cardboard now instead of styrofoam, and we don't. And styrofoam is that unique contaminant, like plastic bags, like a lot of these things that last for a thousand years that we don't have to rely on. So to me, when you go into restaurants that are serving dine in, and you see places like Starbucks that are serving dine in with all sorts of beverages and they are able to have a business model that serves it in a reusable cup.

To me, this was narrowly tailored enough and important enough that I wanted to bring the Bill. And I recognize the reality of not wanting to do whack-a-mole. And I also completely agree with that. But I also think that we need to move faster. We need to not wait for a 25% reduction and allow the single use cup to be 25% less thick and say we're doing well, because in reality, we won't be doing well.

We'll still be continuing to add to our waste stream without actually meaningfully changing that. I have high hopes that SB 54 won't end up that way and that we're going to be responsible for watching it. But in the meantime, I think we have to address the single use consumption reality that we are all perpetuating, tolerating, allowing to happen in our individual choices here with what we offer and also with the restaurants and the way businesses operate in this state.

We had an example of testimony from someone from Europe who was talking about the way they manage their waste differently. And there are many different ways to do it that could do it better. So to me, this is an area that we continue to need to work on.

I recognize that this might not be the thing that moves forward with the Committee, but if it is something that you are willing to consider as a small step toward us not being so reliant on single use consumption, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Really appreciate that. And, yeah, I think as 54 becomes more kicks in, we will start to change some of the culture, but we all are going to have to bird dog out very, very closely. Anyway, thank you very much. I don't know if. Well, I have to ask for a motion. I suppose.

I suppose I will move the Bill.

Okay. Senator Skinner moves the Bill. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1167. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you very much, Senator. We're going to leave that on call for other Members to add on. Okay, let's go. Oh, that's right.

You're going to present Senator Atkins' bill. Okay, so Senator Blakespear is going to present item nine, SB 1342, which is Senator Atkins' Bill on San Diego secret projects.

This is on a different topic.

Yes.

Let me know when you're ready.

Yeah, please proceed.

Okay, thank you. Chair and colleagues, this is SB 1342. And I'm presenting it on behalf of Senate President Pro Tem Emeritus Atkins. This bill would authorize, but not require, CEQA streamlining for two key energy and clean water projects in the San Diego region. This is the same CEQA streamlining the legislature and governor approved last summer and SBA for other energy, water, and microchip infrastructure projects. That streamlining was supported by major environmental groups and others.

To be clear, projects subject to streamlining receive two key benefits in exchange for meeting higher environmental and labor standards. First, the project applicant can prepare the administrative record for the project concurrently with the land use entitlement, thereby shaving months or years off the preparation of the record. And second, to the extent the project is challenged in court, the courts must resolve all CEQA-related claims within 270 days where feasible. Again, this shaves months, if not years, off the process.

Nothing in CEQA streamlining weakens environmental mitigation or the rights of parties to challenge projects. It simply speeds up key CEQA processes to shave months or years off of final approval. The committee analysis indicated that current law may already streamline CEQA for the San Vicente pump storage project. This is not entirely clear under the law, and if it is, there is no harm in further clarifying and providing more certainty.

The author is willing to take clarifying amendments that this bill does not mandate CEQA review of the South Bay facility. SB 1342 is simply an insurance policy. In the event CEQA does apply. There are other statutes on the books passed by the legislature for a football stadium in the City of Industry and other projects that were never built. If the projects referenced in SB 1342 do not use the CEQA streamlining, there is no harm.

The statute would simply stand the books and not be used, just as other elective statutes are. SB 1342 is sponsored by the San Diego Water Authority. It is supported by the building and construction trades, carpenters, iron workers, operating engineers, teamsters, San Diego Chamber, and others. And with that, I would like to introduce two key witnesses in support, Bob Giroux on behalf of San Diego Water Authority, Jeremy Smith with the state building trades, and Kip Lipper of Senate pro tem. The Senate pro tem emeritus office is here for technical assistance.

Great. And I do want to clarify, the committee's not asking for amends. It's a do pass recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

But we'd love to hear from you, Mister Giroux.

Thank you, Senator Allen and Members first. I represent the San Diego County Water Authority. We're the sponsors of the bill for Senator Atkins. I first want to thank Bren Cook, the committee consultant for her work on this analysis and the conversations that we've had along the way. I also want to thank Senator Blakespear for pitch-hitting for Senator Atkins today. The San Vicente pumped hydro facility is a project that Senator Atkins has been committed to for a number of years.

She's passed a couple of bills helping to move the project along and acquired state budget money in two different cycles to help fund design and review the South Bay water treatment facility located in the City of San Ysidro. Many of you may have seen press. I don't think a day goes by that we don't talk about the. That the press doesn't report on the pollution that's, that's engulfed the South Bay of San Diego.

And so those are two projects that the region direly needs to have built. San Vicente will provide power to 100,000 customers in the region and relieve the grid and the South Bay water treatment facility. While we don't at this point know if we need a CEQA process that is under debate, we would like to give them the added tool in the event that at 1.0 we need, the process needs to be streamlined. So with that, I would like to answer any questions the committee may have and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next key witness.

Thank you, Madam Chair Jeremy Smith. Here on behalf of the Estate Building and Construction Trades Council. Also here today on behalf of the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council, we are supportive of this project, these projects, and supportive of the bill today to add them to the environmental leadership program that is also known as known as the AB 900 process. One of the main reasons we are supportive today is that there is a project labor agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority.

And inside that project labor agreement, on top of the laying out the wages and benefits, work hours, and work processes, are several, actually, 11 targeted hire provisions. 60% of the workers on this project need to come from the water authority's jurisdiction, and 15% of the workers on the project need to meet one of 11. The different targeted hire provisions.

Of those 11, here are just a handful that a worker is a veteran workers who may have no high school diploma or GED, a worker who is homeless or has been homeless within the last year, a former foster youth, a custodial single parent formerly incarcerated, or a graduate of a multicrafts corps pre-apprenticeship program. That's just a handful of the 11 that need to be met on this project at a 60% threshold, a 15% threshold.

As I said, 60% of the workers need to come from the water authorities area. This is one example of what a project labor agreement can mean. And when we find partners like the water authority to create these agreements, it's good for the community, good for the workers, and good for the project manager. Happy to support the bill today and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now we can hear from any. Me too's. Anybody else here in support of the bill, you want to come to the mic and give your name, affiliation, and that you support.

Madam Chair Carlos Guterres on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in support.

Great, thanks.

Madam Chair, Don Wilcox, with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.

All right, any other me toos? All right, do we have any in opposition to this bill? Okay, seeing none. Let's bring it back to committee. Any comments by committee members? We have a motion. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. And there's no amendment, so the motion is do pass to appropes. Okay, roll call.

SB 1342,the motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, great. All right, Senator Portantino, we'll hear from you. This is item number five, SB 1147.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Today I present SB 1147, which builds upon the work from a previous bill in 2018 that directed the State Water Board to adopt definition and micro definitions of microplastics and develop a standard and method to test for microplastics in our drinking water. As you all know, we've been seeing more and more data and studies coming out on the prevalence of microplastics in our in rain, drinking water, soil, air, pretty much everywhere.

We do know, however, that when ingested by marine life, such as birds, fish, mammals, microplastics have been toxic and the mechanical effects leading to issues including reduced food intake, suffocation, all kinds of things. So research from Columbia University in Rutgers also found that 240,000 detectable plastic fabrics fragments are typical in a bottle of water. So it's imperative that we prioritize more research, analyze the prevalence of microplastics, and try to come up with a strategy to deal with them.

And so that's what this bill seeks to do, is to build upon the information that we have from identifying the prevalence of microplastics and try to create some sort of strategy to deal with them. And so I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you. Do you have any key?

I do not believe we have any witnesses. We have any witnesses.

The me toos?

We have me toos, but I don't think we have any primary witnesses.

Okay. So those of you who are in support, just come to the mic, indicate your support.

Christina Hildebrand, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy. Thank you.

Krystal Raynes in support of this measure for Californians Against Waste.

Megan Chumway, we retired public health nurse in support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Katie McCammon, Sacramento resident in support.

All right, any others in support? Okay, then. Those of you in opposition. Do we have registered opposition?

All right, so this is also, in effect, me, too, versus apologies.

Madam Chair. Not in opposition. Just noted some concerns. We started having conversations with Senator Portantino and his staff. Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association, representing the state's bottlers. We have a new responsibility on bottlers imposed on the bill. While from our perspective, there's still a lot of open issues about research on the human health effects from microplastics, on testing protocols, on testing capability as it relates to public water sources.

So we want to work with the Senator on aligning the dates, aligning some of the responsibilities so tap water and bottled water are treated equally. But we do appreciate the last set of amendments, removing some of the dates, understanding that there's still a lot of work to be done. So appreciate the Senator's efforts and look forward to continuing to work with you.

Okay.

Dennis Albiani with the American Beverage Association. We share the same concerns as International Bottled Water Association. Some of the dates, the testing should be equivalent for both water sources and some of those areas. And we'll continue to work with you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any other opposition? Okay, seeing none. Let's bring it back to committee. I have a comment. Senator Portantino, I appreciate your bringing this bill. I think that the kind of tragic circumstance we're in now, I kind of remember back from when I was younger, all the ads about better living through chemistry. And then, of course, the graduate about the future is plastics.

And this isn't only related to plastics, because obviously the microplastics, well, it does in terms of micro, but they are also, you know, the stuffed animals we give our children, the fleeces and such that we wear. I mean, now things, these both microfibers and microplastics are so ubiquitous that I'm afraid that there could be beyond serious health consequences before we've at the point where we can't really pull back. And I think we're starting to see that now with PFAS and other materials.

And of course, our green chemistry program has not been able to keep up with these things. So this is important, and I appreciate your bringing it, and I wish that we could. We and the US CPA could act more aggressively to protect the public from these dangers. But I will see if any, since I'm being chair right now, and see if anybody else will either bring a motion, and then I will have the Senator close. Okay, great. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta and Senator Portantino, you can close.

The chair and me. We're of the same generation. I don't know if you remember, but when I was in elementary school, we actually had an assembly where two people came and presented on how plastics and polymers were going to change our life for the better. And it was this entire dog and pony show on the wonders of plastics and polymers. And it was literally an official assembly where they brought the entire school to listen to this presentation back in the seventies.

So, I don't know if they came to your elementary school, but they came to my elementary school in New Jersey to present that. And here we are, you know, several decades later, trying to deal with the consequences of that prevalence that you eloquently outlined. So, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, so this is also do pass to appropriations to rules. Okay, do pass to rules. So, we will do a. And that motion is. Senator Archuleta will do a roll call.

SB 1147. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Rules. [Roll Call]

So we will now go to item six, SB 1188, Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam Acting Chair and Members. It's my pleasure to present to Senate Bill 1188, which would require the Water Board to develop and adopt minimum standards related to technical, managerial, and financial capacity of small water systems. And I appreciate the work of the Committee on this. And as we all know, there were as many as 1.6 million Californians without access to clean drinking water.

At the present time, there's 900,000 Californians in 369 failing water systems, with another 619 water systems at risk, with another 1,000,006 people. Our struggle is to figure out how to guarantee safe drinking water to all those people. Last year, I did a bill, Senate Bill 1188, that addressed the problem that a lot of times a disadvantaged system is next to a system that is better off and can have that smaller disadvantaged system annexed to it.

But the state law only allowed the smaller system to get the grant, not the bigger system, which sometimes is the one to need it to take the disadvantaged community in. That bill passed and was signed by the Governor last year. In my own district. I have a number of situations, but there's one in particular. The big basin water system, which was in part in the fire zone, in the CZU fire.

And that water company, which is a private water company, is a poster child for why this bill is necessary. They did not know where their service territory was, who their customers were, or even how to contact or bill their customers. And then due to the setbacks, they went belly up. It has cost almost $900,000 of public money, almost all of it from the state, but a little from the county, to prop up that system so hundreds of people don't lose their source of clean drinking water.

And so this bill would set up standards of really administrative capability for the smaller systems. So we have that discussion before they go belly up, not after, when we have to pay hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. My staff has engaged with the opposition on this bill, and we will continue to work.

If this bill moves forward, I expect that we would take an amendment which would synchronize this bill within the Federal Environmental Protection Agency definition, which applies to districts that serve less than 10,000 people or less than 3,300 water connections. There were two other suggestions that were made about technical assistance, and a technical one in the the staff analysis, and we will, if the bill moves forward, work to address both of those in the next Committee. And so I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And here with me in support of the bill is Abraham Mendoza from the Community Water Center.

Thank you, Senator Laird, for the introduction, and thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Acting Chair. My name is Abraham Mendoza with the Community Water Center, testifying in support of SB 1188. CWC is an environmental justice nonprofit and we advocate for safe, clean, and affordable drinking water for all Californians. Our offices are located in Visalia, California, Watsonville, and Sacramento, where our team works directly with rural low income populations to provide resources and technical assistance for communities that lack access to safe drinking water.

Under existing law, the state doesn't have the standards for technical, managerial, and financial operations of a water system, despite the Water Board stating that TMF capacity limitations are a key driver towards a water system's inability to stay in compliance with state's drinking water standards. Examples of TMF deficiencies can be lack of knowledge about the designated service area, as the Senator mentioned, and customer base, an insufficient amount of cash reserves and more.

And, for example, our team has provided assistance to multiple small water systems in our service territory with identifying water and sewer lines that had been improperly or never recorded at all. We've worked directly with community residents to ensure that their bill statements were accurate and that payments were being credited properly by their water systems.

And just last year, our team also worked tirelessly to ensure that small water systems have the technical and managerial capacity to take advantage of and apply for expiring debt relief funding on behalf of their customers. SB 1188 establishes TMF standards and requires small water systems to meet these standards within two years, thereby enabling the state to be more proactive in identifying and preventing public health crises that jeopardize our human rights of water. On behalf of the community water center and the disadvantaged community members that we serve, we urge the committee's aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Let's hear from anyone else who wants to weigh in support of the bill. Seeing none. Opposition? You can come up here and join us.

It's not lead testimony. It's like a me too. So, Danielle Blacet with California Municipal Utilities Association. We have opposed unless amended position, but Senator already talked about two of our issues today, and we're confident that we're going to be able to work out our issues. Thank you, Senator. And thanks, staff and the Committee, for all your work.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Yes?

Chelsea Haines with the Association of California Water Agencies. Ditto CMUA's comments, and just look forward to working with you to, I think, make it a little bit more consistent with the Clean Water Drinking Act.

Okay, thank you. Great. Let's bring to the Committee. Questions, comments, thoughts? Motions? Okay, moved by Senator Archuleta. You're having conversations, I suppose, with the folks who came up?

And as a close, I would just say we'll continue to work with them. I think there's places to go. I mentioned them in my comments, and this is a good bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Okay. All right, Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1188, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We'll hold the roll open, and Senator Weiner's next. I see his staff here, but not him. Let's go to Senator Menjivar, maybe to present SB 1497. That's item 12. A modest bill.

Little, little thing.

Okay, you can proceed when ready.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, fellow Committee Members. First, really appreciate the work the Committee did with my team on this bill. Appreciate the analysis. I will be accepting the amendments. We've heard the phrase, you break it, you buy it. That is exactly the approach SB 1497 is looking to take. The top polluters are responsible for breaking so much of our environment, so now they have to pay for it. SB 1497 requires polluters to contribute to clean up the damages their emissions have caused.

Without it, California taxpayers have been, will be, and continue to be left to foot the bill for the climate harms these polluters cause. Those responsible should pay to clean it up. For example, just two years fiscal years ago, we allocated $9.3 billion budgetary emeritus, you probably remember this, $9.3 billion to respond to climate crisis here in California.

In LA County where, Mr. Chair, you and I represent, it's been estimated that we have to set aside $12.5 billion over a 15 year span to address the damages caused by the emissions of our top polluters. Now we're talking about a tiny fraction of entities, and I want to make clear, and I know the Committee amendment also made clear, that this does not apply to utility companies.

We know what data shows us, that worldwide, there's approximately 69 companies that would fall under the thresholds of the polluters that I'm looking to address. That's a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies. We're looking to address polluters in California that are emitting 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions. And just so you can visualize this, this is if you had a car that was 25 miles per gallon, drove around the circumference of the earth 113 million times.

That is how much 1 billion metric tons of emission looks like. This isn't a small emission causing damage to our state. Now, I'm happy to see that Congress, other states like New York, Massachusetts, have also just this year implemented or introduced a similar bill. California colleagues, we are at the cusp of being the first state to be able to push this forward. I want to make clear that what we're looking to do is not going to cut drops.

It is not going to bring down a cost down to consumers. It is not a piece of regulation. Nowhere in this bill is it mandating entities to change what they're doing. We have a lot of work. We've done infrastructure legislation that we've passed that addresses how we can reduce emissions in the future. What I'm looking to do is a couple of things.

1497 will first require the first ever comprehensive statewide cost study that will be led by CalEPA. It will quantify the climate damage damage caused to the state of California. CalEPA would then define the responsible parties as those who did business in the state and emitted, like I mentioned, 1 billion metric tons CO2 within 20 year period from 2020 via the extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels.

Again, looking at only a tiny fraction of companies. We'll assess an initial fee on the responsible parties to pay for the cost study and administrative costs of this program. We're dealing with a multibillion dollar deficit in this budget year. This is a creative way to bring revenue to the state of California to not have to further put this cost on taxpayers. And as we're looking for, as LAO mentioned, the upcoming years of deficit will continue to bring benefits.

Now, how do we know who to assess the initial fee on for the responsible parties? I mentioned there's current public data right now that shows there's approximately 69 entities worldwide we can look at. And this is self reported data that companies already do and they report to the SEC and is available for anyone to look at. Next, we're going to direct CalEPA to oversee the program.

They're going to assess and collect the fees, like I mentioned, from the responsible parties within the 20 year period and then consider and allocate expenditures from the resulting fund to address climate damage and to projects implementing state climate policy. I'm looking to ensure that my colleagues, for the next decade, as we create this fund, to take responsibility and allocate where this funding is going to go for our communities to ensure that we're really looking to offset some of those damages caused by emissions In communities like mine in the San Fernando Valley, in the city of Burbank.

We know now that there is a legally bonded methodology from the global social cost of carbon that has a calculation of $190 per billion ton of what we're looking to charge. This isn't set in my bill. I'm just giving you an example of how we can calculate what to charge these entities. So I'll conclude here. This bill does not reduce admissions.

There are other initiatives that are on the table that is looking to do that. I'm not proposing a tax. This is a one-time fee that is retroactive. It won't bring down any regulations on these entities. And like I mentioned with the amendments, it clarifies that this does not include utility companies. It won't pass down to consumers because we in the Legislature just last year passed SBX 1-2, that prevents price gouging.

So with this in place, an SBX 1-2, it won't bring down the cost to consumers. Additionally, because this is a tiny fraction of companies, we're looking to have pay into the fund, you could have, for example, one entity on one street that pays into the fine, another entity on the other side that doesn't pay. And if they're not paying, they're going to keep their prices the same. Competition won't allow for this company to raise more because they'll lose even more customers.

Now, I'm not a scientist. I'm here to represent the hundreds of communities that are at the front of seeing these damages. But I want to turn to Mr. Chair now to the experts on this topic that have worked so much on this. My two witnesses right here.

Hello, witnesses right here.

Good morning. I'm Kassie Siegel. I'm attorney and director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. And for our over 200,000 members and supporters in California, we are a proud sponsor of SB 1497. This bill is urgently needed. It's fair, it's practical to implement, and it is well supported scientifically, economically, and legally. The polluters pay principle is at the heart of our legal system.

And this bill is modeled on existing federal and state law, laws like the federal CERCLA, the federal Superfund law, which requires polluters to help pay for cleanup legacy pollution. And courts have repeatedly upheld the Superfund law and have held that governments can impose liability for such costs on those companies that created and profited from pollution. Another analogous bill is California's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991. It likewise assessed a fee on companies for causing harmful pollution, in that case, lead containing products.

The fee went into a fund that helps victims of lead poisoning to this day. And SB 1497 similarly assesses a fee on a small number of the world's largest companies. We've provided to you written testimony from scientists, from economists, from five of the country's leading environmental law scholars who have opined in favor of the bill because it is well supported, consistent with existing precedent, and will withstand industry attack.

Without this bill, the state will continue to struggle to pay for the mounting climate devastation that is affecting all of us and that's caused by fossil fuels. It's fundamentally fair for some of the world's largest corporations to pay for the damage that has been caused by their products, and they have the capability to do so. Exxon, during the covered period from 2000 to 2020, made half a trillion dollars in profits, Chevron $250 billion and Shell $309 billion. The Center respectfully asks for your aye vote, and I look forward to your questions.

Good morning. My name is Aradhna Tripati. I'm a climate scientist and a professor at the Institute of Environment and Sustainability at UCLA and the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences there. I'm also Director of UCLA's Center for Diverse Leadership in Science that's focused on green workforce development, where we work with community members, community college students, and four year university students.

I'm a co-author of the fifth National Climate Assessment for the United States, which emphasized the consensus on the pervasive and unequal damages from climate change. And my expertise contributed specifically to the climate trends and wildfires section. I'm also a member of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Board of Atmosphere Sciences and Climate. Now, my key message today is that there is a strong scientific foundation of the bill.

I want to make it clear that California can attribute the costs of climate change that happen here to particular fossil fuel polluters as directed by the bill. We know that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis. Fossil fuel emissions are responsible for about 90% of human-caused CO2 emissions and the vast majority of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. right now is at a time where we have $1.0 billion more disaster every three weeks because of these fossil fuel emissions, and yet we can trace these emissions back to a relatively small number of industrial polluters as the senator mentioned.

I should interrupt because we give the, we have a limited time, so you need to wrap up. Okay?

Thank you. Now, with that climate attribution science is a consensus science that's been used in hundreds of studies, and we can answer questions like how much did emissions increase climate hazards like wildfire area burned? What are the costs resulting from those emissions? The cost estimates tend to be under inclusive, and that makes them really conservative. Thank you. And so, in short, using peer reviewed approaches based on attribution science, CalEPA can conduct a climate cost study and assess a proportional fee to responsible emitters as directed by the bill.

Thank you. All right, let's see if there's any others in support in thebBill. Please come to the mic.

Good morning. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters in strong support. I was also asked to pass along the support of the Climate Center. Thanks.

Good morning. I was asked to note strong support from Central California Environmental Justice Network, NextGen, Scope, Azul, 350 Bay Area, Human Impact Partners, Center for Climate Change and Health, Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change, and Sierra Club California. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Calpirg, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environment California. And I was also asked to pass along support for my colleagues at Consumer Watchdog. All in support. Thank you.

Katie McCammon, 350 Sacramento in support.

Megan Shumway, Third Act and Sacramento Area Congregations Together, Climate Justice Committee in support.

Good morning. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support. Thank you.

Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in strong support.

Good morning. Karuna Jagger, longtime resident of Berkeley, California, in strong support.

Good morning. Theo Kane, Oakland resident in strong support.

Tina Gallier for 350 Sacramento in strong support.

Jason Feifel, I was asked to pass along support of the Climate Reality Project California Coalition. Thanks.

R.L. Miller, Climate Hawks Vote, wildfire survivor, strong support. Thank you.

Maitre Shankara as a Concerned Students representative as well as Climate Citizens lobby in support. Thank you.

Darrell Little with NRDC in support. Thank you.

Ilan Kaslatar with Oil and Gas Action Network in strong support.

Abraham Mendoza, once again on behalf of the Community Water Center in support.

Good morning. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support. Thank you.

Janet Cox in support for Elders Climate Action Northern California and Southern California chapters, the Glendale Environmental Coalition, and Climate Action California. Thank you.

San Francisco resident in strong support. Thank you.

P.J. Eugenio, San Francisco resident in support.

Cynthia Shallet, on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong in its 60 chapters across the state.

Anjalca Cabande, Director of SamKen, in support.

Teresita Naval, a San Francisco resident. I strongly support.

Ramon Bonifacio, San Francisco resident in support.

Hello, my name is Theresa Delalas and a resident of Salsa Market, San Francisco. Strongly support.

Morning. Salim Purungaha, San Francisco resident in support.

Raymond Castillo, Sacramento resident in support.

Hola, Sacramento. Catalina Flores, representing the statewide LULAC, League of United Latin American Citizens. I want to make sure that you understand that I am 76 years old. When I moved into Sacramento, when I was. You going to shut me up? [Testimony in Spanish] I support 1497.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Marty Buckley De Lalas and I am a resident of San Francisco, and I strongly support. Thank you.

I never like to shut anyone up. I just need to keep consistency with our procedures. We now need to hear from opposition unless there's anyone else here in support. Okay, opposition, please. And only the registered opposition at the table. Only the registered. Others are me too. Okay, go ahead.

Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce. And here in opposition to SB 1497. First, I want to thank the Committee for the clarifications, the way the bill was written prior to Committee analysis. It had very broad, sweeping implications that were deeply, deeply concerning. The bill still is deeply concerning. First and foremost, you know, we at Cal Chamber, you know, we see this unwinding a lot of the provisions that were incorporated as part of AB 398 that included some clear consideration for cost containment provisions.

A lot of those parties that would be subject to this are obligated parties who are paying already as emitters as part of GGRF. If the Legislature and the author wants to contemplate this research as part of something with the GGRF funds, then that's the Legislature's prerogative. That is up to the Legislature to choose. If they seek to do that, that's their choice. However, we do think that this is a tax.

Prop 26 made very clear that there is a simple test of five different questions that could be asked that, you know, would present this as a tax. The first is this a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted that is not granted to those not charged? That's not the case here. Is this a charge imposed for a specific government service or product? No, that's not the case here. Is this a charge for reasonable regulatory cost? No, that's not the case here either.

In fact, the bill makes clear in the language itself it's for damages, not a regulatory cost, does far exceed regulation. Is this a charge imposed for entrance to use for state property? No. And is this a fine, penalty or charge imposed by the judiciary or state for a violation of state law? No. In fact, many of these same operators were operating what they concede, what they had perceived to be safe operations as part of their, you know, their operating practices.

So, you know, look, Cal Chamber has supported taxes in the past. This is not the right one, not the right cause. And, you know, we are adamantly opposed to this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if there's any me too opposition at the mic.

Thank you, Senator. Alice Kessler on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. We'd like to associate ourselves with the Chamber's comments and thanks, Senator Menjivar, for meeting with us. But regretfully, we are opposed.

Good morning, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association in strong opposition.

Good morning, Members. Jack Yanos, on us on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Peter Blocker of the California Taxpayer Association, in opposition.

I'm not going to read my presentation then?

No, you do not.

Good morning. Thank you, Committee. I am in opposition of this bill. Thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in opposition. And the gentleman before me was with the Boilermakers Union. Just wanted to make sure that was on the right. Okay.

I was going to ask him to please make his affiliation, but that's okay. Thank you for clarifying.

All right. We will bring it back to Committee. I'll give the chair the gavel.

Thank you. They let me present with local government. So we're all set now. Thank you. Thank you very much. So let's open up to the Committee for questions, discussion, and we'll start with Senator Skinner.

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this special Bill. I would also like to be added as a co-author. I appreciate that our fossil fuel industries and related would oppose. I get it, however, and not to, this is well known, so I'm not bringing anything up that anybody doesn't know.

But maybe we as a society and the United States as a whole and maybe even internationally, this crisis would have been confronted more seriously and we would be in, I doubt we would have averted any climate change, but maybe we'd have made a lot more progress as of today had we not experienced decades. And we're talking decades, and this is by public record of fossil fuel industries, fossil fuel interests, basically putting out false information when they knew, when they knew the science.

So, this is well documented public record. And so, it was much harder to come together as a society to address the issue. And we're pretty late in the game. So, I think bills like this are very, very important given how late we are in the game, as much as, yes, in anything we take on, there's always going to be tradeoffs. But the ability to try to lessen the most extreme damage of this crisis at this point is essentially. So.

I appreciate the author for taking this Bill on. It's a big one. And I don't really have a question, though. You can address whatever you'd like, but I would like to be a co author, and when it's appropriate, I will move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Other yeah. Senator Gonzalez.

I too would like to, to say thank you to the author for taking this on. It's certainly not an easy feat to do, you know, given the stakeholders involved.

But I really would like to say there's a reason why cities, especially local municipalities across the globe, are actively litigating this issue, because we know that there are damages that have been made as to Senator Skinner's point, not just to public health, but also to many of the cities in terms of infrastructure and degradation, of landscapes and biodiversities, etcetera. So regardless of how difficult this might be, this is the right thing to do.

And for that, of course, I would be happy to support and help you along the way. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator.

Thank you. Okay. Items have been moved. We'll give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you so much, Mister chair. We know that scientists right now can quantify the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to particular climate hazards and extremes in California now and into the future. We have the ability to estimate the damages that California has endured from those fossil fuel emissions driven climate hazards. Some reports right now are accounting CEO profits or earnings of certain of these entities are upwards of $17,000 an hour.

These aren't entities that we should have any pity or any, or any understanding that they won't be able to pay into this Fund. It will be pennies in comparison to what they make annually in terms of profits. And they're profiting on the backs of communities, and they're profiting from the damages from their emissions. One of the oppositions that we heard in me, too, are from the taxpayers Association.

And in fact, I would ask that right now, if we don't let this Bill continue, it's going to be on the backs of taxpayers. Right now, taxpayers are the ones who are having to pay for this right now. We're asking to relieve taxpayers from this financial burden and put it on corporations who can actually afford this.

Because when we're looking at our budget and we're looking to see what we're going to cut, whether it's childcare or foster care services, we should look to cut how we subsidize these entities and how we take on the financial burden and it should be placed on them.

So, I'm asking, colleagues, for us to be instrumental in this shift in the United States, to have California be in the front to ensure that polluters pay their fair and reasonable fee, one-time fee, not an ongoing tax, to ensure that we rectify some of the damages their emissions have caused. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Secretary.

SB 1497. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll leave that open for Senator Dahle to add on. All right, I see Senator Wiener's here to present Item Seven. That's SB 1227.

Great. One moment. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for setting this matter. Thank you, colleagues, for hearing it. Is this on? Is this on? Is it? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for hearing this bill, SB 1227, and I do just want to express to the Chair and to his staff my gratitude for the significant effort that the Committee has put into working with us on this bill and I'm extremely appreciative for that engagement. And I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments.

And with the caveat, that as we've discussed, there are several amendments that we've agreed to continue to have conversations about in terms of potential refinement of those, and specifically that we've agreed that we'll continue to engage on the lead standard to determine if there are different types of standards that should apply to different kinds of projects and that once we have that conversation, also looping in the discussion about the provision on no net increase of GHG emissions. So that will be one conversation.

We've agreed that the historic, that the demolition restrictions will be for buildings at least 100 years old. However, for buildings 76 to 100 years old, there will be additional historic protections that we will work out in addition to the existing historic protections that are in the current bill in print. In addition, for the provision about being 15 percent lower than BMT in the region or city that we--I think we agreed that we're going to tighten up definitions just so it's very clear what is being compared to what because it's a little vague now.

And then, as we discussed, we're very appreciative of the Committee's recommendation to place judicial streamlining into--judicial CEQA streamlining into the bill, and we will make a decision about whether we think that that should be in the bill or not. So again, thank you very much to the Chair and to his staff. So with all of that said, SB 1227 does two things.

It creates a temporary CEQA exemption for parts of San Francisco and the downtown area, and it also temporarily expands in that area the Welfare Tax Exemption for workforce housing/moderate-income housing. Colleagues, as I think you all know, because unless you've buried yourself in a hole somewhere, you have seen the unending, negative press coverage about San Francisco in the last few years.

And although our city is incredibly vibrant and wonderful, as always--no offense, but the best city on the planet--in many ways, our downtown area is absolutely struggling in a very, very significant way, and I appreciate the analysis sort of pointing out where San Francisco's downtown stands compared to many other downtowns. The pandemic took a huge toll to our downtown area, to the Financial District, to Eastern, South of Market, to Union Square, to Civic Center and surrounding areas.

Just significant high vacancy rates that will probably continue to go up in the coming years as currently 34 percent office vacancy rate downtown, that number will probably go up as leases expire in the future, a more than a 25 percent decrease in sales tax revenue downtown, and that includes Union Square, and a 50 percent decrease just in terms of foot traffic downtown compared to before the pandemic. Downtown San Francisco, particularly the Financial District and parts of Eastern SoMa, have been historically very, very focused on office.

And in retrospect, you probably shouldn't have a downtown that is so dominated by office. And we saw what happened in Lower Manhattan when they transitioned years ago from dominance of office to a mixed-use area with education and housing and retail and entertainment and so forth, and Lower Manhattan is now, unlike Downtown San Francisco, is now absolutely thriving. And so we know that we need to make thoughtful, well-thought-out change in Downtown San Francisco.

It's going to come back and we want to make sure that we're being thoughtful in bringing it back, and so this bill, I don't pretend that it's a silver bullet. Nothing is a silver bullet. This will be one additional tool so that as San Francisco moves forward, we can do so as expeditiously as possible. So the bill does two things: it creates a temporary CEQA exemption for downtown. I want to be clear: this is not what we call ministerial approval.

Full local control remains in effect over zoning, over whether or not to issue this permit or that permit. The city will retain full local control and the city will have the option of invoking CEQA exemption. And then in addition, we know we have other bills and other laws that allow for conversion of commercial to residential. We also want to encourage a real mix of incomes, and so we're proposing to temporarily expand and the Welfare Tax Exemption to workforce/moderate-income housing.

So again, Mr. Chair, thank you for all of your effort, and with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I do just want to say one more thing, and we've had a lot of discussions about this. San Francisco, in terms of its building standards and so forth, has incredibly high environmental standards, higher than what the state requires, and in addition, in this area, this is not an area where the zoning in any way allows a chemical plan or any polluting uses, and the Committee has proposed, and we've accepted baking that into the bill as a guardrail, and I do appreciate that as well. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Yes?

So just to--and we basically added lead platinum as an eligibility criteria. I know there's going to be a few types of cases where we can have further discussion, but I did want to just--you certainly listed out some areas where there's going to be some continual discussion, but I do want to just clarify that you are accepting the amendments?

I'm accepting the amendments as outlined in the analysis. We need to have further conversations in a few areas. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

Great. All right.

Okay. With me today to testify is Jacob Bintliff, Manager of Economic Recovery Initiatives for the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and Srivastava--I'm sorry, I always mispronounce your name--Chief Policy Officer at SPUR. I hate mispronouncing names because everyone mispronounces mine.

You may proceed.

All right. Thank you, Chair Allen and Members of the Committee. Jacob Bintliff for the Office of Economic and Workforce Development in San Francisco, here on behalf of Mayor London Breed, who's the sponsor of the bill. As the Senator laid out, Downtown San Francisco has been greatly impacted by the pandemic, and we do have historic rates of office vacancy. We have retail vacancies between 25 and 40 percent, depending on where you are.

In response to those challenges, Mayor Breed has laid out a roadmap to San Francisco's future, a series of more than 50 initiatives aimed at making downtown a thriving, mixed-use environment with activities at all hours of day and night, not just a place to go to work nine to five. Over the last year and a half or so, the city has made a lot of progress.

On that front, that includes things like zoning reforms and local tax incentives to support office-to-housing conversions, local tax relief for hospitality, retail, restaurants, and other businesses, a tax credit for new office tenants moving into the downtown area, significant investments in public safety and cleaning downtown, over 20 million dollars in grants to small businesses, including programs for pop-ups and filling vacant storefronts, investments in our downtown parks and plazas and funding for outdoor events and concerts, restored bus lines and new protected bike lanes downtown, and robust local streamlining legislation for small businesses and housing.

So we've been hard at work at the local level, and this bill is intended to bring additional tools to the table that only the state can provide, namely, with respect to this Committee, the targeted CEQA exemption for commercial entertainment and mixed-use projects, ranging from storefront tenant improvements to new construction for this period of ten years.

The proposed revitalization zone was actually carefully crafted to correspond to the city's local zoning, including the primary mixed-use commercial zoning district that we have along Market Street that includes Civic Center, Union Square, Financial District, the mixed-use East Cut and Transbay Transit Center area and the area South of Market between 2nd and 6th Streets that encompasses the Central SoMa Plan, an area that had--an area plan adopted in 2018 to allow for 8,000 new units of housing and some eight million additional square feet of commercial space.

Senators, no one is saying that CEQA is the cause of our current challenges downtown, but unfortunately, we are very familiar in San Francisco with CEQA being used as a tool to block or delay projects for a wide variety of issues that are not strictly related to environmental protection.

The aim of this targeted exemption is to provide greater certainty and speed the approval process for new investments and developments in downtown that we desperately need and that we're actively working to attract: academic campuses, student housing, entertainment and sports venues, lab and life science spaces, and new and innovative office and retail concepts. The bill includes important guardrails from other recent CEQA legislation, including that it cannot be used to demolish historic resource or rental housing or construction in areas with hazardous soils or flood zones.

The bill would also require compliance with local zoning, which, as the Senator mentioned, does not allow for heavy industrial uses in this area. The bill would help us stimulate new investment and development downtown, one of the most sustainable, compact, transit-rich urban environments in the world. San Francisco is a keystone of California's economy and identity, and today we're here asking you to join us in steering this great California city toward its next successful chapter. Thank you very much.

As Senator Wiener said, I'm the Chief Policy Officer for SPUR. SPUR is a nonprofit think tank and leading civic institution in the Bay Area that promotes sustainable and equitable planning policies. Our offices are actually located in Downtown San Francisco, well within the zone that's proposed in this bill. We and many of our civic and community partners have recognized the pivotal role that Downtown Recovery plays in the prosperity of the entire Bay Area and even the state.

As the Senator mentioned, about 36 percent of office space downtown is vacant. This is--in case you don't know what that means--it's about 40 Transamerica Tower buildings. This is a shocking number in an area that still remains a global center of opportunity and innovation. We have estimated that it would take about 40 years to fill up the obsolete Class B, Class C vacant office buildings with office users if we don't take action to really think about the reinvention of those buildings downtown.

As Jacob mentioned, San Francisco is already taking a lot of action to address the crisis downtown. The Mayor's launched a downtown recovery roadmap that's led to a lot of new changes for businesses, flexible zoning, streamlining measures for office-to-residential conversions, and in March, voters passed a measure that exempts those types of conversion projects from real estate transfer tax.

But despite these local efforts, there's still a lot that needs to be done to incentivize dense, mixed-use projects, particularly in Central SoMa and the Transbay East Cut areas, which are transit-oriented areas. So I just want to also highlight the environmental benefits of redevelopment downtown. We know that building infill housing would be far and away the most potent climate mitigation action tool that we could be doing because of the low VMT that downtown area has.

It's about--it's actually the third ranked place for where people who live downtown walk to work. So we're doing really well on VMT reductions in this area. We also avert a lot of greenhouse gas emissions by reusing and repurposing adaptive reuse projects, especially in the high-rise concrete buildings that have that embodied carbon. It's the most transit-accessible location in the entire West Coast, so redeveloping downtown and allowing for more tools to do so means moving people out of cars, onto trains, buses, bike lanes.

And so, as we support Senator Wiener's efforts, diligent efforts to revitalize downtown, encouraging development that will lead to a more resilient, environmentally friendly district and region, it's an important part of the solutions that we need to address the crisis.

Thank you very much. Okay. Other folks who want to weigh in support for the bill?

Karen Lange, on behalf of Mayor London Breed, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Sosan Madanat, W Strategies, here on behalf of California YIMBY, in support, and I've been asked to give a courtesy MeToo for the California Business Property Association, in support as well. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nor Cal Carpenters Union, in support. Thank you.

Ryan Allain. I'm for the California Retailers Association, in support. Thank you.

My name is Giovanni Adelini. I'm a proud member of Nor Cal Carpenters Union, and I strongly support this bill.

Hi. I'm Derek Kunze. I'm part of Nor Cal's Carpenters Union, and I'm in support too.

My name is Rob Martin, Nor Cal Carpenters Union. I support this bill.

Alex Torres, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Louis Mirante, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Stout, on behalf of SPUR and YIMBY Action, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Downtown Association. We're in support as well. Thank you.

Matthew Beeston, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, in support.

Marcel Moore with Nor Cal Carpenters Union. I'm in support.

Brian Dominik, Nor Cal Carpenters. I'm in support.

My name is Lisa Tramonte. I'm one of the Nor Cal Carpenters, and I'm in support of this bill.

My name is Joseph Perez, and I'm with North Carpenters Union, and I support this bill.

Armando Murillo, Northern California Carpenters, and I'm in support of this bill.

Buenos Dias. Nazario Moreno [Testimony in Spanish].

My name is Jed, North California. I support this bill.

Thank you. All right. There you go. All right. Opposition folks who want to come up and raise concerns about the bill, you can come join us here at the dais.

Okay, hear me? Good morning, Chair, and good morning, Senators. With all due respect to the author, with him we agree with on many issues. Unfortunately, this is not one. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We are very interested in seeing the details of how the amendments will shape. But I don't think there may be improvements in our view. I don't think it will change our respectful opposition to the proposal. In concept, though we sympathize greatly with the intent.

Downtown San Francisco is struggling, just like many downtowns across California and across the country. And we as info advocates care very much about finding the solutions and the formulas to making our downtowns thriving places to live and work and play. We think we should be thinking very deliberately about work and workspace, what that is post COVID and what commerce and commercial space is post COVID, and with ever growing online commerce that is happening in our country, and how our downtowns should adapt to those changes.

But we do not think that a blanket CEQA exemption across the whole geographic area really provides specific answers to those very difficult questions. We don't see how an exemption there's not tied to any kind of specific project goals or project types or performance requirements are really going to ensure with any kind of certainty that we're going to get the kind of development that ensues that the city really wants or needs.

Beyond all the other info exemptions that are available that could accommodate the housing and mixed use that you're talking about, you don't see how an exemption this broad that bypasses public review and community process is going to ensure that the new downtown is really going to meet community identified need and meet state and climate inequity requirements, and to do so without any kind of unintended harm.

In general, we just don't see how this proposal, how a CEQA exemption really offers answers for the problem that we're trying to solve here. We respectfully ask for a no vote.

Good morning. Angelica Cabande, director of SOMCAN. We are one of the many organizations that opposes SB 1227 unless amended. Since 2000, SOMCAN has engaged and worked closely with city departments to address pedestrian safety and traffic impacts, the housing element, and many more. We are pro-development as long as it centers around people and equity. SB 1227 proposes to remove all CEQA protection from downtown San Francisco where thousands of people live and work, including families, youth, and seniors.

This will create an unequal San Francisco where CEQA protections would remain in affluent areas, leaving low income downtown neighborhoods vulnerable to public health and environmental impacts. CEQA does not stop projects. Over 58,000 housing units have cleared the ER process in San Francisco but remains unbuilt. The numbers suggest the pandemic and other factors are the cause of are downtown problems, not CEQA. Other major California cities subject to CEQA regulations like San Jose and LA recovered from quickly from the pandemic. We should look into those.

SB 1227 area map includes the Filipino Cultural Heritage District, which is one of the 14 state designated cultural district in California. This district advanced socioeconomic, ethnic diversity, and tackle issues of displacement. The state should be working in partnership with cultural district and their communities, not rescinding their CEQA protection. Also, the city and county of San Francisco, including legislative body, the Board of Supervisor has not taken an official position on SB 1227.

With that, we propose amendments we feel are necessary to ensure the environmental impacts are not ignored and the bill does not strip away the public process. We ask the author and the Committee Members to consider the sunset date of January 1, 2029, lessen the map zone to just Market Street since it's supposed to be focused on downtown financial district revitalization. Constrain the bill only to expedite judicial review per the original Committee recommendation and add analysis mitigation of direct and indirect displacement housing and small business as criteria. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I know any tweeners on this topic who want to express?

Thank you, Senator, Mr. Chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, we look forward to seeing the bills amended out of the Committee. A lot of amendments spoken about today. We do have concerns about the underlying policy here, about doing this. How does could go statewide next.

We have provided some amendments to the Senator staff and the Senator that placate some of our concerns and we suggest maybe a judicial streamlining process. We do talk about a LEED certification, as you mentioned earlier, as well, and we finagle with the skilled and trained workforce requirements as well. So we look forward to seeing this bill as it moves forward. We are a tweener. We have grave concerns. I appreciate giving me 10 or 15 seconds here.

Oh, of course. Yeah. Thank you. And to clarify, I mean, this is basically imposing a LEED platinum standard on the projects. There's going to be a few cases where that may not be the right application. And then, as we had it, if you lead gold, then you get streamlining. So that's the top line. There are a few more details, but that's the top line. Other folks who want to raise concerns or opposition to the bill? Okay, so let's bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Comments? Thoughts? Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Come on up. Come on up if you want to. Yeah, yeah, please come on up. Express your opposition. We ask folks to state their name and affiliation.

Sorry for not coming up sooner. It wasn't clear that you.

No problem. Yeah, yeah. I know it's probably your first time here.

Reina Tello, on behalf of People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights in San Francisco, also known as PODER, in opposition. And I was also asked to give a me too for Center on Race and Poverty in the Environment. CRPE, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

P.J. Eugenio, representing Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, which makes up over 40 organization in San Francisco. And we strongly oppose.

Ramon Bonifacio, I'm representing Communities for Better Environments and our residents on the Bales map area. And we strongly oppose.

Thank you.

I'm Teresita Novar. I'm Teresita Novar, representing some of the Filipino Cultural Heritage District in San Francisco. And I strongly opposed about this bill.

Thank you very much.

On behalf of United States, the mission which houses Guevavi in the Quatra Latino Cultural District and American Indian Cultural District in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Raymond Castillo. I'm with San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. We're built of about 40 organization. We signed the SOMCAN letter. We strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Theresa Delales. I'm on behalf of the San Francisco Tenants Union. We strongly oppose, but I'm also a resident, also South Market. And this bill actually concerns me because we're afraid, you know, going through the word revitalization is very deceiving to me. Okay. We're afraid. I'm afraid that we're going to be out of a house. I live in a building which is over 100 years old. Please help us. If you truly believe, you know, in CEQA, please protect it.

Thank you. And to clarify, buildings over 100 years old are out of the bill and no demolition of residential property. Right. And no. That's right. That's right. No demo. That's absolute true. No demolition of residential property. But yes.

Darrell Little, on behalf of NRDC in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Marty Buckley Delalas. I'm with Communities United for Health Injustice. So we strongly, strongly oppose.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for all the comments. Very much appreciate. This, of course, was a very difficult bill for us to get our heads around. We really worked hard to get it very limited. I know the bill's going to have a long and winding road through the Legislature. I am very sensitive to the concerns raised by the cultural district folks. I actually had the opportunity.

Some folks know that I've been chair of the Arts Committee, too, and we have championed the statewide cultural district program. We got the opportunity to actually tour the Filipino Cultural Heritage District just last year and really great experience. And so one of the many things that we're trying to figure out, particularly with regards to the Committee amendments specifying the exemption not cause substantial harm to historic structures, that we ensure that, that the heritage districts are protected and the inheritance structures are protected.

And that's conversation that we really welcome people's input into. So that's one of many issues that have been raised. But I wanted to state this Committee's particular sensitivity to that among many of the other issues that were raised. So with that. Happy to hear questions, discussion. Senator Menjivar.

Senator, I know you mentioned this is in the silver bullet or the magic bullet. I forgot what you meant. Why do we believe that CEQA is so, I just ran over here, why do we believe CEQA is at the core of what's happening to downtown San Francisco?

Yeah, I want to be super clear, because this keeps, our statement keeps coming up. We're not, at no point have I ever said or suggested that CEQA caused San Francisco downtown to go from where it was in 2019 to where it was today. That was the pandemic. Work from home. All of the forces that we know have had real impacts.

But whatever caused it, whether it was a pandemic or if it had been some other huge trend, but whatever caused it, we are where we are, and we're in a situation where we have a sky high vacancy rate, where we've seen just where downtown is at just massive risk. And so the city once is very interested in reimagining what downtown could be, to have more housing, to have more entertainment, to have perhaps more research, educational institutions.

And the purpose of this bill is to allow that to happen in a more expeditious way because we don't have a lot of time and there's a huge risk downtown. So we're not saying it caused it, and we're not saying that this is by itself going to solve everything, but it's going to give the city a tool to be able to help solve the problem, and it will not take away local planning. This does not eliminate public process.

San Francisco is really good at public process, sometimes, you know, can go well beyond what's required. And so San Francisco will ultimately make local decisions about what should or shouldn't change, and we're trying to help facilitate those local decisions. So that's.

Would you say then there's is still going to be opportunity for public engagement then?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. I thought that was one of the main concerns of the opposition, that it was removing public comment or review.

I think that via CEQA, if there's an exemption. But in San Francisco, permits still often go to the Planning Commission. Permits can be appealed to the Board of Permit appealed. The city does extensive outreach. Like for example, Mr. Bentliff mentioned the Central Soma Plan, which is part of this zone, the central part of Soma, which has been rezoned pursuant to an area plan that went through incredible public process for years. So this does not eliminate all public participation. It's about the CEQA piece of it. There are still other pieces of public participation.

You know, I think it was in last week's Committee that I said the comment that I've never been a fan, that we've skirted CEQA streamlined, exempt for venues and so forth, and then the impacts that I see that at least, for example, Sofi stadium in LA has caused in the surrounding areas because we streamline centers like that. Because, oh, look, it's fun and great, and I'd be more in favor of doing that for housing. This is gonna create.

You mentioned arenas, you said student housing, but maybe not student housing. I don't see how this outweighs. I don't see how skirting CEQA right now outweighs the need to provide protection on what CEQA is supposed to happen. And additionally, you know, in the analysis, why I asked you why and thank you for your response and why you believe this is, this would help because so many other cities still have this in place. And what I don't want Senators for then next year, City of Sonoma, City of San Diego says we want an exemption as well. Yes, sir.

Yeah. And I appreciate that. And that was one of the reasons when I profusely thank the Chair and his staff at the beginning, is that, you know, a lot of our conversation was about the fact that San Francisco has incredibly high environmental standards around its zoning and its construction process and sustainability of buildings. And so that was then baked into the bill specifically to make that clear.

In addition to this area being very sustainable, as you heard, low VMT, transit accessible is exactly where you want people to live, work, enjoy themselves, and so forth. So that's why, you know, that's why we think it's appropriate for this.

And you mentioned local control and everything, but even the analysis note is that it doesn't provide the same holistic review of environmental effects and mitigation strategies found in an ER. So they're an important role, but they're not as robust. And it's not to say that they will or will not require public engagement. It will still be up to them and they may not essentially require public engagement.

Senator, I still have a lot of concerns, and I know you and the Chair went back and forth on the amendments. I'm not clear still, if it's all the amendments in bold in the analysis, it's, if it's a portion of it. But even with that, I still worry that this in particular, because we're going to hear other bills for CEQA exemptions for like DOT related, Department of Transportation related entities and stuff like that. I don't think this, again, outweighs the risk of what could happen.

Yeah. I appreciate those comments. Senator Dahle.

So thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, worked on a lot of bills for your area over the years, and sometimes we've been on the same side and sometimes not. So I just wanted to say that, you know, my friends in labor and, you know, I voted for many of these CEQA exemptions, but I just want to say this is the Environmental Quality Committee, and I love this Committee, and I actually am going to say something that most people wouldn't. I like CEQA.

I think CEQA was designed for really good purposes and California was way ahead of the curve. Now, do I like CEQA when it was designed? Yes. Do I like CEQA where it's at today? No. CEQA is used for all kinds of opportunities for business on business, labor, PLA, I mean, it's amazing how the environment gets thrown away when you get a labor agreement or one company has their gravel pit and they are suing another one on CEQA because they don't want competition next door.

So I know the frustrations of CEQA. I know the reason that the law is passed. The law was passed to say if you cannot mitigate, then you can't mitigate it. If you can mitigate it, you move on. And unfortunately, that's not where we're at today because attorneys and many people use it as a tool. So I sympathize with the fact of where you're stuck at in your community. But I also will say this, that this is different than a one off arena or a Sofi stadium.

This is talking about a geographical area that is like, it's not just one building, it's not just a stadium. This is could possibly change a community. And I have somebody who is from the north state and has had problems. San Francisco is unique in itself. It has a city-county government which doesn't exist anywhere in California except for San Francisco county and city.

And quite frankly, a lot of their policies dribble out to our areas that I don't like and I don't like those policies, but they dribble out because it's a powerhouse, it's a worldwide place. I used to love to go there. I don't go there anymore. I have not been there in 12 years I think. Don't plan on going because I don't feel safe. But that's another story.

But at the end of the day, we have a city that's failing and we have a tax base that's not coming in and it's in disrepair. And there's a huge, lot of huge problems and not only just for that city, but throughout California. So I'm not going to be able to support your bill today because I think it's too broad, number one.

And I think we really need to have a conversation about CEQA for all of California because for the things I stated earlier, the fact that it's used as a tool to stop or mitigate or get a project labor agreement or whatever, in this case it's LEED. I'm beating my Chair up because I respect him for his environmental courage, but I'm like, hey, how can you support this? And he's like, well, it's LEED certified. Well, I'm beating up on him.

So he's taking the heat today from not only both sides of the aisle, but at the end of the day, I think this is overreaching. It's too far. I think some of the things that the community brought up, do I always agree with them? No. But I can't support it. We need to take a look at CEQA throughout the state because California, I just want to close with this. We are losing businesses and we are losing our economic growth.

We are not going to be the fourth largest economy very long. In fact, I think we're probably, once we tally it up, we're going to be way less than that. People are leaving California, including myself. I'm looking at places outside of California. I can't afford to run a business for 93 years here. My margins are thin and people are shipping product in here. It's happening with retail space, it's happening with small businesses, and we just keep piling on.

And so for those reasons, I can't support this bill, unfortunately, even though I know the Senator is working hard to try to save his community. But we need to do something statewide to revitalize. If it can't be mitigated, then it can't be mitigated. But if it can, we should be able to do growth, not use CEQA for a tool to leverage. And that's what's happening. And unfortunately, nobody wants to tackle the big problem.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I share many of the concerns, quite frankly, that have been raised. Not every single one of them, but many of them. And I will say LEED platinum is a very high standard and it's part of why I'm not particularly anxious to give any further on that issue. It really does set a very high environmental standard with regards to high energy and water efficiency, green building design, sustainable use of materials, all those kinds of things.

But all the issues that have been raised are entirely valid and it's part of why it's made this bill so difficult on our side. But I'm certainly, I am willing to give you the courtesy to, to continue to move forward on this. I have no idea where the votes are going to be today on this, but you know, I'm happy to entertain a motion if someone's willing to do it. Otherwise, we can wait for the full Committee to come together. But, you know, love to give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the comments today. A couple things. First of all, I think we can all, maybe not all, I think many of us agree, and a lot of us have been vocal that CEQA does need to be modernized and we may have different rationales. I personally think CEQA should be more focused on climate action when sometimes it's not. It was used.

CEQA was used within this very zone to kill a 500 unit housing project on a parking lot a block from a BART station using that was 20% affordable. It was used in this very zone. Some of the groups that are opposing this bill today also were opposing that project and helped kill. I just need to call that out. And so we are. And I would love to see CEQA be modernized, retooled so it's focused on what it's supposed to be focused on.

That has not happened. That has not happened. There were various efforts, governors that have supported it. It has not happened. And so the question is, until that happens, are we going to say that we're not going to let, for example, downtown San Francisco have this? It's just a temporary tool to allow recovery to give our downtown a hope. That's what we're doing.

And I don't want to, you know, I don't think we should be saying until we fix the whole thing, we can't provide that temporary tool for this struggling area. I think that this is a focused, focused effort. We've come up with good amendments with the Chair that make it even more focused. And, colleagues, I ask for your aye vote.

I haven't heard a motion yet. Certainly we can entertain when we have the full Committee, unless. Great. All right, so Senator Archuleta has moved the bill. Do pass as amended to Rev. and Tax. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1227. The motion is do pass as amended, and we re-refer to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll hold the roll open.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you so much. Let's go next to Senator Durazo, who I see behind the column hiding. Senator Durazo is here to present SB 1255, Item Eight in your analyses.

I just missed you, Mr. Chair. You were--

Yes. Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Nice to see. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. SB 1255 will require the State Water Board update its annual needs assessment for water systems under the SAFER Program to include an analysis of the need to make water rates affordable for small water systems with under 3,000 service connections. Although ensuring access to clean and affordable water has been a focal point of several legislative initiatives, California is at the epicenter of water affordability and access crisis, especially for--guess who--communities of color.

The State Board reported that water rates rose 45 percent between 2007 and 2015. Those rate increases have led more than a million and a half households having an average 500 dollar water and/or sewage utility debt. Further exacerbating the problem has been how efforts to address this access gap have been delayed. In this 2022 Water Supply Strategy, Governor Newsom called on the water utility sector to address the cost burdens on low-income members.

This bill is taking the Governor's lead on determining how we can make water rates affordable for our working class communities being priced out of a vital life resource. This bill will direct the State Board to regularly assess the cost of ensuring that water is affordable for small water systems under 3,000 connections, and it will allow the State Board to understand the cost to support disadvantaged communities and achieve water affordability.

With me, I have Michael Claiborne, Directing Attorney for Leadership Council, as well as Abraham Mendoza, Policy Manager for Community Water Center to testify in support and help answer questions. Thank you.

Okay, you may proceed.

Good afternoon to the Chair and the Committee. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm a directing attorney at Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. California declared access to safe and affordable drinking water a human right in 2012, but the reality in communities I work alongside is different. In El Porvenir, for example, a small majority Latino community on the west side of Fresno County, the median household income is 42,000 dollars. At the same time, the monthly charge for drinking water is in excess of 300 dollars.

That's almost ten percent of median gross income in the community, and that's for drinking water alone. Absent ongoing state funding, which brings the water rate down to 112 dollars a month, the amount would be wildly unaffordable, especially with a 60 dollar sewer charge on top of that water bill. El Porvenir remains one of the only communities receiving ongoing state funding to make water more affordable in the state.

And unlike other essential utilities like the CARE Program for electricity, individual low-income households rarely have access to any social safety net at all to aid with unaffordable water bills. When a family cannot afford their water bill, they're at risk of having their water shut off and are often forced to make trade-offs between paying for water or other essential services like medicine, food, and housing. We thank Senator Durazo for her work in advancing water affordability for water systems with fewer than 3,000 connections.

While access to safe and affordable drinking water is a--unaffordable water is a statewide problem, the solution set for small water systems is unique. Further analysis regarding the available solutions and the cost of those solutions is needed. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center, Central California-based environmental justice org that works directly with rural and farmworker communities to advocate for and develop targeted, locally-focused solutions to the statewide drinking water crisis. Unfortunately, as a lot of the Members have already said on the dais, lack of affordability is not a new concept for most Californians.

As the Senator mentioned, from 2007 to 2015, the State Water Board reported that water rates rose over 45 percent statewide, and in the following years, more than 1.6 million Californians had an average past due water and sewer debt of anywhere from 500 to 1,000 dollars. Water debt and affordability has only been compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, with billions of dollars in direct aid being provided to past due households through one-time temporary assistance programs like LIHWOP and CWPP.

Now, while these temporary programs are necessary lifelines for low-income families to catch up on their bills, the lack of a permanent statewide program means that millions of Californians, as Michael mentioned, are still left choosing between paying high water bills or providing food and other essential services for their families. I'd like to share with you two quotes from some of the community members that we work with directly. The first comes from Jose Hernandez, a farm worker from the San Jerardo Cooperative in Monterey County.

And he let us know, he said, 'in my car, I keep five gallon bottles that I have to refill on my own every two weeks, but it is expensive, and I have to use that water to make my coffee and also wash my dishes.' And the other quote comes from Berta Diaz, a farm worker from East Orosi in Tulare County, and she told us, 'our children will tell us, mom, the bottled water is running out. What are we going to do?'

SB 1255 helps because it will direct the State Water Board to regularly assess the cost of ensuring that water is affordable for small water systems under 3,000 service connections and help pave the way for a permanent low-income ratepayer assistance program in the future. I thank you for your time, and we urge an aye vote.

Great. All right, let's go to folks who want to add in support. Hey, Melissa.

Hello. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, California, in support.

Thank you.

Darryl Little with NRDC, in support.

Thank you. All right, let's go to opposition. I don't think we had any registered opposition. Anyone? Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments? Moved by Senator Menjivar. Comments by--

Well, I'm just going to say, this is really difficult. I have a whole bunch of these community water systems that are under--a lot of them way under 3,000, and Dodd had a bill we looked at, I think it was last year, on why the cost is so high and what do you do about it? So you have Prop 218, which you can't raise the rate until you get an okay by the people, and the people say no to it.

So you're stuck in a box where you can't raise the rate. At the same time, the Legislature continues along with the Water Board and social justice people and everybody passing laws on water quality and all the things that these age--that these special districts have to do, and they have no means to be able to get the technical help, and we're not giving them any grants from the state.

But at the end of the day, the water rate goes up and the water rates are high and there's no doubt about it. But as we've seen in the energy side of it, if somebody is going to get a compensation, if we're going to pay their water rate, somebody else has to pay. There's no, you either give it to--in this building, the wealthy need to pay or people that have a higher income need to pay. And so we're basically just diverting the cost.

And so for me, I know what the problem is. The problem is we continue to regulate these water agencies to do all these things and they have no means to do it and somebody has to pay. At the same time, the ratepayers have to pay, and that's what's driving up the rate. And in some of these communities where I know the Senator has focused on, Porterville and Central Valley, I mean, where they have no means to get their ability to fix the system, number one, number two, there's not a system next door that they can, you know, draft into and they're stuck.

And so, adding cost shifting is not going to be the answer. Somebody else paying the bill is still somebody else paying the bill, and we saw that in the energy side. Actually, the poor people are paying for the rich people on the energy side. So I'm, I want to say this: it's not going to solve the problem.

We need to really figure out what the--we're doing here as far as regulatory side and allow them to, you know, give water services without--I'll give you, I'll just give you an example of, they have to buy--these water companies have to buy--my father-in-law runs one. That's how I know so much about it. He's frustrated. He can't get grants. He has to supply clean water. At the same time, he had to buy some equipment.

The equipment he had to buy has to be environmentally friendly for California, and the cost is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they had one that wasn't environmentally friendly, was doing the job. So the money was spent for the vehicle that they needed and it wasn't to drop the rate, and so they have to pay the rate. So you got to stop forcing them to buy new equipment, environmental friendly equipment, so that they can actually provide water, which is their job.

So I'm going to lay off the bill. I can't support it. It's just going to do nothing but tell us what we already know. People can't afford it. But the reason--what we need to be studying is why, not trying to figure out a way to tax somebody else or make them pay for it and give them a break--figure out why. The reason is we have a lot of laws that are passed and it drives the cost up. It's the same thing that's happening to business in California as well.

Does anyone want to respond to those comments from the witnesses at the--or maybe you can do it in your close. Yeah. Yes, sir?

So I think I agree with a lot of comments from the Senator that there's this choice between how environmentally friendly and protective we want to be and the impacts on water affordability. So we agree with that. We just think it's in many cases a false choice. We can have water that's safe to drink, it's affordable, and kind of meets all the stringent requirements that we're placing on it to protect health, but at the same time is accessible and affordable.

That won't happen, though, without further analysis and study, and I'm kind of being thoughtful about how we address these issues. Hexavalent chromium is a, I think, perfect example which I'm sure the Senator is thinking about given recent events. So we agree. We think this bill aids in it, though, and allows the State Water Board to look at solutions geared towards small water systems.

That could be consolidation, like the Senator mentioned, it could be subsidizing the water system as a whole, or it could be low-income rate assistance for households that it really varies by water system, and the bill is geared at kind of addressing that issue based on unique circumstances.

I have a follow-up question. So who is this--does this, does this bill direct them to actually figure out a solution or this just does a study to say how much, what the problem is? I don't see the solutions in here.