Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Natural resources and water Committee will come to order. Good morning or good afternoon. If the Members of the Committee could come to room 1200, we can then establish quorum for our hearing. We have 16 bills on today's agenda and four are proposed for consent.

Bills will be generally heard in file item order, although I think we're going to be making an exception for file item number eight by Assemblymember Gibson whenever he gets here. We don't have a quorum yet, so we're going to proceed in Subcommitee at this point in time and we'll establish a quorum when sufficient Members are present.

We'll hear from our first author. I see no other authors other than Senator Lackey in the room, so we'll proceed with file item number 14, AB 3182. Assemblymen, you can proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you for being here. You can present there or you can present it there. The stand, whatever you'd like to do, Assemblyman.

All right. Well, thank you Mister chair and Members for allowing me to present this bill 3182. In 1988, voters approved Proposition 70, which was a monumental park bond that allowed $20 million to develop conservation lands in San Bernardino County and allowed them to acquire 366.55. Write that down. 366.55 acres in the Chino Agricultural Preserve.

Roughly two decades later, SB 1124 allowed some of the Prop 70 provisions and sought to clarify them. The bill granted the county the authority to sell or exchange the properties if they would be used for wildlife habitat conservation and open space or preserving the region's agricultural heritage.

However, while well-intentioned, the bill was ambiguous regarding the allowed use of the proceeds from land sales. AB 3182 will provide clarity and allow San Bernardino County to invest these funds into parks, recreational facilities, and cultural venues to enhance access and amenities within the Chino agricultural preserve while adhering to the intent of Prop 70.

And I would like to introduce my witness, Brad Jensen from the San Bernardino's County's Legislative Affairs Director.

Thank you. Is this your only witness?You have up to four minutes, if you like.

Oh, thank you. Well, thank you everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today about AB 3182, as the Assembly Member said. I'm Brad Jensen, I'm the Legislative Affairs Director for San Bernardino County. This bill is a district bill and it addresses a 35 year old problem for our county.

As the Assembly Member mentioned, in 1988, we received $20 million as part of Prop 70, a very important and landmark state park bond, and we were able to purchase nine dairy properties in Chino. If you've seen the movie Back to the Future, when Marty McFly goes back in time and he visits his neighborhood.

It's all farmland that was filmed in Chino, and today it no longer looks like that. But we do own these properties, and unfortunately, these properties were not contiguous. They were not adjacent to each other. So we were never able to really put them together and create a functioning park. So 35 years later, here we are.

We have these properties that we're not entirely certain what to do. There was a bill passed 15 years ago, SB 1124, that we are seeking to change. And what it does is it allows us to sell our property.

But what we would like to do is because the land has appreciated, we'd like to be able to sell our lands, purchase replacement conservation property next to one of our large regional parks.

That park is 2200 acres of open space, and if we're able to purchase additional lands next to it, we expect it will be about 3000 acres. It's much more valuable for environmental purposes, better habitat, better conservation land.

And what we'd like to be able to do is to take our land sale proceeds and be able to invest it in additional recreational facilities at this large park. We feel like it's a very important bill. It's important for us.

It's a very good investment in the long term future for recreation in the Inland Empire and would appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who would like to testify with me, too? Testimony? Limit your comments to your name, affiliation and aye position on the measure.

Nicola Wordelman on behalf of the City of Ontario and Orange County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Don Wagner, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gagger. On behalf of the County of Riverside, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Jonathan Munoz, on behalf of Inland Empire Health plan, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses approaching the mic, we'll move it on to opposition. Do we have any witnesses? Lead witnesses in opposition, seeing none. Any other witnesses? In opposition, seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee Members.

Any comments or questions from Members? Okay, I'll just state briefly. I want you to thank you for presenting this nill today. Some of the men. I think this nill raises tough questions that the Legislature will need to consider going forward on how we protect and ensure the long term benefits of our bond investments in a changing world.

This is not the first bill to come before this Committee to try to address how we think about Prop 70's purposes and benefits.

And I appreciate the tough situation your county is in to try to make the best use of Prop 70 investments when there are not a lot of opportunities for the original purpose of agriculture in what is becoming a more urbanized area.

I also appreciate the fact that your county has been responsible in acquiring more land than was required of it by prior legislation. So we are recommending an aye on this bill. Would you like to close?

Just encourage your aye support. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't think we have a quorum just yet. We need one more Member. So when we have that, we'll take up your bill. But thank you very much. Assemblyman. Thank you, sir. Well, now move to our next bill. We're making one exception to file item order here, and we're going to take up Assemblyman Gibson's bill.

File Item Number Eight: AB 2465. You can present whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members, and also thank you very much for allowing me just to move in front. Again, thank you for allowing me to present this bill, Assembly Bill 2465. This bill aims to prioritize and provide financial assistance to socially disadvantaged groups by incentivizing existing organizations to diversify their governing body.

By empowering diverse-led organizations, AB 2465 aim to integrate them into California's climate and green infrastructure workforce. There are evidence funding disparities between diverse-led organizations and those that are not. Currently, there are significant funding disparities between diverse-led organizations and others.

For instance, Blacks and Latinos nonprofit leaders receive only four percent of the philanthropic funding in the United States despite comprising approximately ten percent of nonprofit leadership nationwide. According to the bridge spanned analysis, the unrestricted net assets of Black-led organizations are 76 percent smaller than their counterparts and their average percentage of revenues was less than half.

This inequity in assets is concerning, as funding often correlates to trust. Diverse-led organizations face challenges such as fewer staff, smaller budgets, and less funding, leading to them being redlined, a term indicated to severe, underfunded lack of communities or lack of supports in communities.

Assembly Bill 2465 propose three policy changes to enhance equity in state's governmental grant making for the programs involving environmental justice, agriculture, urban forestry, land acquisitions, and watersheds improvements with a sunset date of January 1st, 2031. First, state agencies will be mandated to award preference points to nonprofit organizations, with the majority of their board members coming from disadvantaged groups. Secondly, state agencies would be barred from penalizing socially disadvantaged organizations that lack matching funds for grant requests.

Thirdly and lastly, socially disadvantaged organizations, historically underrepresented in certain industries, would not be required to demonstrate comparative programs or projects--excuse me--by state agencies. And with me to provide supporting testimony is Mr. Charles Thomas, the Chief Executive Officer of Outward Bounds Adventures, and also Mr. Darryl Lucien, Executive Director of the California African American Water Education Fund.

Thank you. You have two witnesses. You each have two minutes, up to two minutes to testify. You can approach the mic whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Darryl Lucien here, representing the California African American Water Education Foundation and 40 Acre Conservation League, pleased to be here and present this bill to you. This bill basically attempted to take a compilation of existing state regulations and grant guidelines and to kind of package them together in what we think would be a best practices approach for equity. And so as a matter of what, as far as what's in the bill, there's not really anything new.

What we found is that state agencies that have substantially similar programs have very different grant guidelines, and so you can go to one state agency and have to submit a completely different set of paperwork. They have completely different set of priorities and/or requirements.

And so what we attempted to do was work within these existing programs because it is important that as we think about 30 by 30, we think about the future of agriculture, we think about the future of forestry in this state, that it is sufficiently inclusive, and that we are all represented in these efforts as we address climate change, as we address wildfire challenges and the like.

I'm also here to answer any technical questions that you all may have. Appreciate your consideration and look forward to continuing to do the good work that needs to be done in rural California.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Thank you. I'm Charles Thomas, Executive Director of Outward Bound Adventures, and I'm here, obviously, in support of AB 2465. In 1959, four people sat around a dinner table and they sat down to discuss how to better engage students that were seemed to be disconnected from the educational system. Those four people were a science teacher from Jackie Robinson's home school, a school counselor, a former Tuskegee Airman, and the first African American mountaineer in the Sierra Club. OBA, Outward Bound Adventures, was born.

Now, 95,000 youth later, and we are the oldest nonprofit in the United States that's dedicated expressively to connecting youth and communities of color to the outdoors and nature-based education and careers in conservation. We operate throughout the greater LA area, but we also operate in many areas in the state for different projects.

A lot of our work is done in South Los Angeles. OBA's programs provide opportunities for all ages to engage in meaningful nature-based education and leadership, as well as training. We have three apprenticeship programs that provide pathways to successful careers in conservation, a sector of--a work sector underserved communities of color have historically been absent from.

But I don't have to tell you it's impossible to have a presence when nobody sees you. As a person of color who's been running an organization of color for the last 25 years and doing this work for 45 years, I need to share with you that we, people of color, have grown tired of endorsing a system where we play a small role that keeps us powerless.

AB 2465 will be an instrument of equity, a tool that will promote a presence for us and franchises into a system and a structure that was not built for us or by us. 2465 will make it possible for the unseen to become more visible and the unheard voice to be heard. I want to extend my deepest appreciation to Assembly Member Gipson for his leadership and his foresight in authoring 2465.

Thank you very much.

And I and thousands of others will respectfully request your aye vote on this.

Thank you so much.

Deeply appreciate your time. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who would like to testify as #MeToo support in support of the bill? Just limit your testimony to your name, affiliation, and support of the measure.

Thank you. My name is Amos White. I'm with 100K Trees for Humanity. We're an urban reforestation nonprofit based in the San Francisco Bay Area. We plant trees for climate, for equity, and for public health. Speaking on behalf and in support of the--

Thank you very much.

Legislation. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Any other #MeToos in the room?

Good afternoon. Ben McCue, Outdoor Outreach, and we're in support of this as well.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll move to opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one approach the mic, do we have any witnesses in opposition? All right, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any members here have any questions or comments on this bill? Seeing no one, thank you, and would you like to close, Assemblyman?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on 2465, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Assemblyman. We now have a quorum, I believe, in the room, so we'll establish quorum. Assistant, if you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. We have quorum.

Okay, do we have a motion on the bill, File Item Eight: AB 2465? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is: do pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

The vote on that is 3-2. We'll leave it on call. Thank you very much. Assemblyman. Before we proceed to our next bill, we're gonna move to the consent calendar. We have four bills on proposed consent. File item number one, SJR 15 by Senator Bradford. File item number nine, AB 2610 by Assemblymember Garcia.

File item number 10, AB 2643 by Assemblymember Wood. File item number 12, AB 3023 by Assemblymember Papan. Since we have established quorum, we'll vote on these items. Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote on that is 6-0. We'll leave it on call and we'll move back to file item number 14, AB 3182 by semi minimum motion on that Bill. We have a motion from Assemblyman. From Senator Seyarto. A motion is do pass to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That vote is 6-0. We'll leave it on call and with that we'll move on to our next bill. File item number two, AB 1992, by Assemblywoman Boerner and proceed whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Senators. AB 1992 would authorize the California Coastal Commission to add blue carbon demonstration projects to the suite of factors it considers for potential mitigation when approving coastal development permits where feasible.

Research shows that blue carbon ecosystems such as sea grasses and salt marshes are more efficient in capturing and storing atmospheric carbon than most terrestrial forests.

Sadly, California has lost over 90% of its historical wetlands and the associated benefits they provide, such as protecting coastal communities from the harmful impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and flooding.

This bill idea is a result of a transportation project in North County, San Diego, where widening of the I-5 Freeway lanes addressed a number of environmental concerns expressed by residents in regard to the impacts to wildlife living in six coastal lagoons, 32 acres of wetlands and 74 acres of coastal sage.

During the coastal permit process, the Coastal Commission approved the project with improvements related to enhancing marine environmentally sensitive habitat areas and it had to do with the advocacy of one of our organizations to include lots of seagrass and lots of salt marshes in this innovation.

And this innovation approach should really be the best practice in mitigating impacts of natural resources and that can be replicated to build and restore blue carbon sinks. We took an amendment in Assembly Appropriations which removed any opposition, and this bill was amended to apply to non-residential projects. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me here, I have Angela Kemsley with Wild Coast in San Diego, the sponsors of this Bill.

Thank you. You have up to four minutes if you'd like to take that.

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Angela Kemsley. I'm the Director of Conservation Impact at Wild Coast. I'm here today to provide strong support for AB 1992, which will protect and conserve blue carbon ecosystems in the coastal permitting process. California is facing one of our biggest challenges yet, climate change.

Luckily, California is a global biodiversity hotspot with many ecosystems naturally able to sequester and store carbon. Of special note are blue carbon ecosystems. Blue carbon is carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants in coastal and marine ecosystems, such as mangrove forests and the salt marshes and seagrass beds that are present along the coast of California.

Through photosynthesis, plants pull carbon out of the atmosphere, and some of that carbon is stored in the plant's woody tissue and then in blue carbon ecosystems. Much of the carbon is actually then buried in the soil.

Since the soil in blue carbon ecosystems is almost continually wet, there's a slower rate of decomposition, so less carbon is released back into the atmosphere when the plants die. Additionally, the carbon stored in the soil of blue carbon ecosystems, if left undisturbed, can be stored for thousands of years.

Preliminary data from research that Wild Coast is conducting with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography suggests that these blue carbon ecosystems in San Diego are actually storing up to 4.8 times more carbon than their terrestrial counterparts, such as the grasslands that we have. Unfortunately, it's estimated that only 10% of California's historic wetlands remain.

So now is the time to take action. AB 1992 will ensure that blue carbon ecosystems are preserved by allowing the California Coastal Commission to require demonstration projects to obtain certain permits and will add to the rapidly growing research in the field of blue carbon by requiring monitoring of permitted projects.

Adding references to blue carbon projects and greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the Coastal Act is consistent with the Legislature's priority to ensure all state agencies are proactive partners in the fight against climate change and continues the Legislature's important efforts to modernize the Coastal Act through bills that have added sea level rise, civil rights, and environmental justice to the statute.

We encourage you to support AB 1992 because it ensures that coastal wetlands will continue to be a natural solution to climate change for years to come. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of the bill with me too testimony? Please limit your testimony to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you.

Ben McCue, Outdoor Outreach, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of the City of San Diego in support.

Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California, in support.

Alex Leumer for Audubon California, in support.

Katie McCammon with 350 Sacramento in support.

Ruth McDonald for Climate Reality Project California Coalition, in support.

All right, if there's nobody else in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to this project or this bill at this time? Not. Do we have anybody in the audience that wants to do a me too opposition? Not. We'll bring it back to the dais. Anybody have any questions, concerns?

We have a motion to move the bill. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. So, we can go ahead and call roll.

This is for AB 1992. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

So, we'll get that. That measure is at 3-3 and we're going to leave it on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, looks like we have Miss Irwin, who is where? Oh, okay. Yeah, Pellerin. So, we're kind of going in file order, and according to who's here. And so, Miss Pellerin, since you're here. Oh, Miss Quirk-Silva. Oh, she is here. She's just hiding in the back. Miss Pelerin, you're welcome to sit back down.

So this brings us to file item three, which is AB 2038. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I wanted to give a little background on this bill. I was a member of the select committee on state parks, and this legislation idea actually came out of sitting on that select committee. And I'm happy to present Assembly Bill 2038.

This bill would ensure that eligible community based organizations recognize Native American tribes and certified Community Conservation Corps who provide non commercial access outdoor programs will have the same ability to inter state lands and waters as the general public, but without additional restriction fees or permit requirements imposed on them. Special events permits and fees may still be required.

Fortunately, California is known for some of the most beautiful and iconic outdoor places our world has to offer. From our giant sequoia trees to amazing desert landscapes and unique west coast natural beaches, outdoor access is linked to countless benefits and perhaps most importantly, health benefits for all ages.

Despite recent significant strides to prioritize equitable outdoor access, barriers continue to persist for many Californians, preventing them from accessing the outdoors. Barriers like transportation costs and equipment expenses continue to hinder the enjoyment of our public spaces.

Community based organizations and tribal outdoor equity programs help further the state's goals by serving as trusted guides for groups from underserved communities to experience the outdoors. Regrettably, they often face regulatory barriers not imposed on the general public, including high fees and limits on activities such as times, dates, locations, and frequencies.

This bill will ease burdens for eligible entities and streamline regulatory management of small, non commercial outdoor equity activities, increase resource efficiency, and lessen the administrative burden on state land managers and eligible entity partners. With me today to provide testimony and answer any question is Ben McCue, who is the Executive Director of Outdoor Outreach.

Thank you. Mr. McCue, you have two minutes, please.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair Seyarto and Senators. Good afternoon. Outdoor is a San Diego based nonprofit working to connect youth to the transformative power of the outdoors. Our programs address barriers to access by providing equipment, transportation, instruction, and meals at no cost to participants and their families.

For many, our programs provide park and beach access that would otherwise be out of reach. Participants have shared how the connections they've made through our programs to the outdoors and supportive peers and mentors have helped them overcome significant adversity in their lives, improve mental and physical health, strengthen their connection to family and friends, and increase their sense of belonging and a love for nature.

In recent years, nonprofits, including ours, have partnered with the state to further park and coastal access through school, weekend, and summer activities. Despite this support, we're confronted with access challenges to state lands and waters that are not faced by the general public, and these include exclusions, caps on activity frequency, and burdensome and expensive permitting requirements.

This has basically created a double standard across the state in who gets to enjoy access and benefit from our parks and beaches. If you're a kid whose family has a car, parents with the free time and money to pay entrance fees, the appropriate equipment, and the right information, you're basically free to enjoy any state park or beach anytime it's open to the public.

But if you're a kid who relies on one of our organizations to get you out to the parks or beaches, basically, your visits can be limited to certain days of the year, certain park units, and oftentimes the frequency of times that you can visit.

If you're a California kid in a second group, you're much more likely to be low income, a person of color, impacted by health and educational disparities, and from environmental justice and climate vulnerable community. The lack of a statewide standard for park access has impacted the state's outdoors for all efforts and undermine the access provisions of the Coastal Act and the Public Trust Doctrine.

Countless staff time for community groups as well as state parks is spent processing special event permits for activities that have already been approved for the general public, free of restrictions.

If you can wrap up, please.

Thank you so much. And for this, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Did anybody lead, any other lead witnesses? If there are none, anybody in support of the measure may come forward and state so. Just state your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the measure.

Good afternoon. Sara Noceto on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, in support.

Hi. Kristin Gorey, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Jacobson. Environment California. Support.

Very good. Thank you. Do we have anybody in the room that wishes to speak in opposition of this bill? If not, any me toos that just want to come up and pose and then go sit down? No? Okay, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Anybody up here have any questions? Senator Eggman.

Thank you. I would just like to move the bill and say it's always nice to see that good policy providing access to our outdoors and state parks comes from a select committee. A lot of times people think nothing comes from a select committee. So thanks for taking recommendations and putting it into action. So I'd move the bill.

Senator Dahle.

I also am going to support the bill, but I do have a question. So we, in 2022, we did $57 million in grant funding to 125 communities, and then another $50 million in the second round of funding and to December of 2023 and then some more out of Proposition 64 was $18 million.

And then on top of that, we also passed some legislation a year ago that I think it was a year ago, maybe two years ago, that allowed you to go to the library, check out a library card, and go to a state park for free. So I wanted. The question I have is funding for this? Is it coming out of those funds that we already have allocated, or is there going, is this going to be a different pot of resources?

Yes. So this bill actually asks State Parks to do less. So hopefully it will address, it will decrease the administrative burden. Currently, we receive some of those outdoor equity grant program funds, and we're actually having to invoice back the state for our staff time trying to get permits to access state lands and waters.

So you're streamlining the process. So you're going to say these things are open to these communities. You can just go without having to get a permit.

Correct. As long as you meet certain requirements around nonprofit or tribal programs.

And I would just add to that one of the things from the select committee was not that they weren't applying for permits, but it might be a group that is taking one group of, just, say, students one week for an outing, and then the next week or month later they want to take another group, they'd have to, to reapply for a whole other permit every single time they were going out for the same activity.

Thank you. All right, we have a do pass motion to Appropriations, and at this time, you can go ahead and close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Go ahead and take roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for working with me on this Bill and I do accept the Committee amendments. Assembly Bill 3150 strengthens the accuracy of California's fire hazard severity zone maps by allowing the state fire marshal to consider map revisions through a petition process.

These maps evaluate hazard-based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood in expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, defensible space, vegetation management, or fuel reduction efforts.

Amendments taken today allow for a public process around the local responsibility area maps, shift some regulatory authority from the Board of Forestry to the state fire marshal to eliminate redundancy and create efficiencies and revise the preliminary petition process that still allows for the, conservate conversation to occur with the state fire marshal.

AB 3150 is a good government measure that establishes a mechanism to update the fire hazard severity zone maps for 50 acres or more, similar to the process used for flood map revisions. With me today to provide testimony and support is Mr. Silvio Ferrari with the California Building Industry Association.

All right, Mr. Ferrari, you have two minutes, please.

Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud to be the sponsors of this Bill and big thank you, I can't say thank you enough to the Committee and the good work, the Committee consultant, for getting into this thing. Wildfire issues are always very, very difficult.

There's a number of bills moving, and always to know what is going on in these things is difficult to do. And I think rolling our sleeves up still produced a very good product that kept the spirit of what we were trying to achieve.

So two really important amendments, and as the author said, we're accepting all of the amendments and happy to do that. But one of those amendments ensures that the maps are updated at least every five years.

I mean, everyone in the State of California benefits from updated maps that are accurate and have the best data and science underpinning them at that moment in time.

Then the other really important amendment for us that keeps, again, kind of the spirit of this alive is actually that preliminary determination is coming out based on the amendments and what is going in is this what's called kind of, we're referring to a sort of a meet and confer process.

Any entity, so whether it's a builder or developer or whether it's an NGO or an environmental group or a state agency or whoever it is, can go to the state fire marshal who is the foremost expert in fire, how it's going to behave, how we should be addressing it.

They are the experts. It will allow a meet and confer process to come to them and say, hey, I'm thinking about doing this suite of mitigation things. How will that improve my project? How will that improve my land? That is something that has long been missing.

And if you paid attention to the last two and a half years of the update of the SRA maps, that process was hugely beneficial, that open public process. But it's only during the update and it needs to be able to occur and we're going to pay for it as the conferee. So we're taking care of the cost.

So we just want information. That's what this is really all about. So we'd strongly encourage your aye vote.

Thank you very much. At this time we'll take the me toos in favor of this proposal. So come to the mic, state your name, organization you represent, your support for the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Moira Topp on behalf of Orange County Business Council in support.

Paul Schaefer with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

All right, at this time it looks like there's no more support, so we will take any people in opposition. If you want to be the lead opposition person, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Alex Limer on behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy. First let me thank the Committee for an excellent analysis on the issues raised in this Bill, and let me thank the author for accepting the Committee amendments which do address some of our concerns.

However, Sierra Forest Legacy must remain in opposition to this Bill because of the amendments not addressing one of our key issues, the shift in critical responsibilities from the Board of Forestry to the state fire emulsion file Marshall. Currently, the board is responsible for adopting defensible space regulations and developing related guidance on fuels management for defensible space, adopting minimum fire safety standards, and developing criteria for and maintaining fire risk reduction community lists.

As the Committee analysis points out, the author and sponsors do not provide much justification for the shift in authority. The shift in responsibilities raises issues regarding accountability and transparency. The board has nine members instead of one, the fire marshal and therefore provides a better check against political influence.

The board must deliberate in public via public hearings and the fire marshal does not. The board follows a more rigorous and open process for receiving public comment. The board has developed expertise over the years, including expertise in vegetation management. The fire marshal does not have this expertise.

Finally, the shift in responsibilities to the fire marshal also raises concerns around the orderly transition of work, problems with ensuring the fire marshal has the expertise and capacity to do everything being asked of it, and issues around how to deal with local governments who are years into the process of the board reviewing their general plans.

Since none of these issues have been addressed in the Committee amendments, Sierra Fprest Legacy remains in opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in opposition to Bill that would like to just come in and add on as a me too?

Good afternoon, Senators. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning Conservation League, also appreciate the amendments and the analysis, but unfortunately maintaining our opposition in alignment with the concerns expressed by Sierra Forest Legacy. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next.

Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity. I'll just echo the prior comments. We remain in opposition. Thank you.

Natalie Brown on behalf of the Endangered Habitats League. Also remaining in opposition. Thank you.

Abigail Smith on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, echoing the same comments, also in opposition.

Very good. All right. If there's nobody else coming to the mic, then we will bring it back to the dais for discussion questions, the author, Senator Stern.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you. I know you've been working on this for many years and fire is a big deal in your backyard, as is housing. And I do respect the push from the building industry to want to build more.

I've had a long and tough history though, on these issues where I think there may just be some fundamental disagreements about where we should be building and what I worry about with the measure, even though it's, I think it's much improved.

I had some grave concerns when it was coming to the Committee, but you know, the board of forestry process, the building industry tried to come to the board of Forestry over the last two years and basically get it a bunch of dead end streets all in the fire zones and be able to extend those and treat fire roads like they were any other road and expand development opportunities on those roads at the Board of Forestry.

Luckily it was a public process and everyone found out about it and people started asking questions and saying, how are you going to evacuate a single-lane road deep into a canyon if you're going to go build 40 McMansions at the end of that dead-end road?

I know there's coveted land on the end of these roads and in these fire zones. This is very high-value land, and there's a lot of developments stuck in the process that would love nothing else than to streamline and expedite that.

And in fact, there's new legislation, gotten amended, SB 650, that just got pushed out there to completely undercut fire mapping in general that the building industry is also pushing. So it's not so much, if your Bill, if this was just a Bill in isolation, I think I would be okay with it.

It's the context of this that causes me still to have concerns.

And the opposition's key argument that the state fire marshal's process is there's a meet and confer, which is sort of informal, but the border forestry process was public so local governments could find out about it, neighborhood councils could find out, and you didn't sort of have to figure out who had the right lobbyist and all this sort of behind the scenes stuff.

I think this work is done best in the public eye, and so I don't have an issue with the fire mapping updates. I'm just wondering if you can comment and if I get that, maybe this is your first shot at the move it from Board to the state fire marshal meet and confer.

Have you thought any further or maybe your sponsors thought further about what more you can do to sort of provide some reassurances about how public that would be so that we don't end up in the same kind of situation where it just feels like, okay, Bord of Forestry didn't give us the answer we wanted on these dead-end roads.

We're going to end around them, go to the fire marshal and just build the developments that we wanted anyways, like, I'm that angsty person who's, you know, had people get killed in fire zones during fires, and we got one going right now. So, I don't know.

I'm extra sensitive maybe about it and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe you guys can just help explain that. What more can we do beyond that meet and confer? If it is going to be state fire marshal, is it in consultation with Board of Forestry? Just creativity on that front would be appreciated. So-

I think I'll let the sponsors speak and then I'll add some comments as well, if that's okay with the Chair, please.

Yeah, I'd be happy to respond. There was certainly a whole lot in that Senator Stern, so at least based on the kind of one thing I do want to comment. CBI, the California Billing Industry Association, did not know anything about the Bill that was gotten amended until last Thursday when I think the rest of everyone else did.

I want to clear that up. So that's when we found out. Number two, on the meet and confer.

We believe that if you have an opportunity to go to the state's foremost authority and say we have a project or there's a multifamily housing project or there's an HOA, and we are thinking about doing these things to better protect one, our development to our community at large, will these things matter? Will these things make a difference?

And if they will, then that incentivizes good action. It incentivizes people making the right call to move forward. So we don't have that right now. I mean, right now we are guessing. Right now we have history of defensible space or vegetation management. Those things in certain areas on certain days when the wind isn't the right lake.

That's what we have now. The state fire marshal does this for a living. They are the expert. And I know that there is some concern about Board of Forestry and state fire marshal. Well, no one in between both those agencies, no one has the concern and the firefighters more in their mind than the state fire marshal.

That is their people. And we believe no matter what they are going to do, they are going to put that group of people as priority. How do we get in? How do we care for these folks? How do we make sure they are in and out safely? That is their number one mission.

And the reason for the shifting. There is a heck of a lot of redundancy at both these agencies and whether it's ingress, egress, evacuation. If you go down the list of things that they are both required to do, they are doing redundancy and it is happening and it does create problems.

So we are trying to clean it up. We have gone through multiple committees now and no one has been able to catch. There's been no gotcha. Like you're trying to get out of something. I think everyone understands. We are not trying to remove a single regulation.

There is no change to CEQA, there is no change to a building standards. There is no change to Chapter 49, there is no change to Chapter seven A. Nothing is changing. It is going from one place to another to eliminate redundancy and hopefully get projects better protected. That's what this is about.

Understood. I mean, if this Bill passed in isolation, if it passed along with SB 650, then all that would be gone, and then you'd have a streamlined process at fire marshall and everything would fly through and you wouldn't have to consider, ESHA, those kinds of issues. So I think, again, context is everything.

I get that it's not your Bill, but if we're going to be streamlining the process and pushing for more development, which is, I mean, you say clean up, there's a lot of reasons, including an insurance crisis, that we shouldn't be wanting to do more development in these areas, period.

I get that some folks have developments they want to pursue, but I think that's why there are all these stage gates and you might call them redundancies. I would call redundancies a good thing when it comes to things that are a matter of life and property.

So, anyway, I didn't hear from you, though, in terms of state fire marshal process and just thoughts about making that more public, subjecting it say to APA, other things that can sort of reassure folks who might have the same anxieties that I do, that it's not going to be like the Board of Forestry. There's no public appointments.

Yeah. I mean, the part that was coming out, the preliminary determination that would have, I think, had a little bit more of that, the meet and confer. So it does allow for the state fire marshal to provide a response.

I mean, if that was the kind of thing that we wanted to post and make publicly available, like, that's always something up for discussion. I mean, we did the best we could to negotiate the best product we could. Yeah.

Senator Dahle.

Did you want to respond to the Senator before I go?

No, go ahead.

So I just want to weigh in a little bit here, too. I think that I'm going to support your Bill, but I want to just, I'm somebody who's been in front of the board of forestry a lot of times and done a lot of legislation in that space.

And also very frustrated at the same time with the mapping that we have available to us to do insurance quotes. Like, I tried to do some work in that space which didn't get off the ground anyway.

We don't have anybody to hold accountable or to actually get advice from when we are trying to do the right thing by fire-wishing our communities, doing the right vegetation management, home hardening. There's nobody that gives you a certificate that says, hey, you did all these things and you actually drive your rate down.

I'm hoping that the mapping part of this will start that conversation so we can then, and it's regulated every five years, so we can come in and say, hey, look, and there are places we shouldn't build. Absolutely.

And I like to have those conversations because a lot of people don't think we should build in my district where we have forested areas. I think we should maybe not build on the coast where we have floods and landslides. That's for a different conversation.

Obviously, we're all trying to protect our own communities, but I think this is a good start to have the conversation about what is it going to look like where we go out there to do these projects or not do those projects for, quite frankly, that's another good opportunity during this process. So I'll be supporting your Bill.

I'm hopeful that maybe we can look at these maps and then start having a discussion about trying to drive down insurance rates, which is really difficult in California right now.

Senator Laird.

Thank you. And I just discovered that this weekend that somebody that went to high school with Senator Dahle is in charge of the floods and mudslides on the coast. So I can hardly wait to address-

We're trying to plan them down there.

Of your comments, I have a unique thing.

I have a question of one of our colleagues, and that is to Senator Stern. You just discussed SB 650 that got and amend as if we all know what it is. I don't know what you're talking about, and you are implying that it relates to this discussion in this Bill.

Could you tell us what that Bill is and why you're inferring that? Can you just tell a summary like what it does. How does it fit? Okay. 610. That's why we couldn't find it.

Yeah. SB 610. It's SB 610, but it would eliminate the very high fire severity zone areas from our mapping process and essentially eliminate the state fire marshals authority over that identification process.

And therefore, if that Bill were passed, it would have an impact on this Bill.

Then there would be no five-year mapping process because the state fire marshal would no longer be doing that mapping in the first place. So there's some reconciliation if it.

Because he does no mapping unless it's high fire zone.

High and very high. Actually moderate as well. I think it's moderate, high, and very high.

I'm sorry, we're just wading into what we don't know yet, but I wanted to-

If I might take the Chair's prerogative now that I'm back, maybe we can review that Bill when it comes before us, since we don't actually know the contents and it's kind of.

Well, no, that would make total sense, except we're voting on this Bill today and it might influence that. And then if we discovered that it would have influenced that, we very carefully would have passed it and been gone.

I'm told that the contents of the Bill of 610 are still being discussed, but that some of the descriptions were not accurate.

The bill's in print right now, so you guys can all look it up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

All right, thank you very much. So I do have a little bit of experience in this area, in my district. And I think one of the problems is that the difference in fire zones requires different building materials be used.

And in some cases, the area that was previously mapped as a high fire hazard area is actually the area that gets leveled and built upon. And so the high fire hazard part is gone, and they need to remap so they can actually get insurance. And there is a certain amount of defensible space that is built around these.

But if you don't have a way of redetermining that map in a more expedient way, it is going to wind up costing builders per house 40, $60,000 more per house to put in all these mitigation measures that actually aren't needed because the terrain has been changed. So the maps do need to get changed.

There needs to be a fluid way of doing that.

And the state fire marshal, who is actually, they're an expert, I went out to one of these subdivisions and was able, just looking at it, and based on the type of brush, the type of rust that grows there, the prevailing winds, the terrain and all of that, it did not match what the map was saying.

And now these people were being required to retrofit $50,000 each house worth of stuff. And so in this world where we're trying to build more houses, that people can actually afford this type of stuff, and the inability to go ahead and address a map where the circumstances have changed, that's what is driving some of those costs.

And I think that's what this Bill will enable us to do a little bit better, is to have a person that is an expert in fire, in fire burning, and how we attack fires to do that and be able to move these projects that are already approved, that are in areas that have altered the landscape and get those done so people can buy their homes and move into them.

And so I'm going to be supporting your Bill today because I think it takes some steps going to.

It doesn't mean I don't have concerns about the ability of them to process this, but I would imagine that's up to them to make sure that they bring their organizations up to the speed so that they can get these things done. And so I'll be supporting the Bill.

And with that, I'm going to make a motion to approve the Bill.

All right, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm the Vice Chair of Rules and we had the opportunity to confirm Fire Marshal Berlant just a couple of weeks ago and the extensive questions that we were able to ask as Members of the Rules Committee.

I mean, his number one priority is the safety and protection of citizens and their property and his firefighters. Right? Those are his top three. And I think they're equal across the board. He's not going to, based on what I gathered from him, and he's a Governor's appointee, but this individual is very well qualified.

He is the foremost authority when you look at fire prevention areas.

We had a lengthy discussion about the maps and how he was working with the Department of Insurance to use home hardening fire mitigation staff, vegetation management, in order to reduce the cost for insurance, which is almost unsustainable or you can't even achieve getting insurance in some of our rural communities, like my colleague from Bieber said, you know, we have to be able to, somebody needs to have the authority to go, yes, you've done this.

So therefore your house has less mitigation or less ability to catch on fire because you've got it surrounded with the mitigation standards that are suggested by the state fire marshal and the insurance companies. To address these maps every five years and have updated maps and information is vitally important, which I love about the Bill.

And like I said, I just think that the foremost authority would be the state fire marshal. I think I've been on rules for three or four years now. Three years now. And this is our third, I believe, second or third state fire marshal.

All of them have the most utmost respect for the individual's life, their property and their employees that navigate these fires when they take place. There's no way the state fire marshal or any state fire marshal would ever jeopardize their employees going in and out of dead-end roads that you have no access to.

Because if you've never followed or watched a view of a GoPro on firefighters that are going in these fire prone areas, like my area when we had the creek fire up in the mountains, it's like a tunnel of flames.

And there's no way that he would do anything or any fire marshal would ever do anything to put any of those people in jeopardy.

And so I am supporting the Bill today, and thank you for bringing it forth because we do have a problem in making sure that these maps are where they need to be, when they need to be, and the people of the State of California are entitled to updated information. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grove, I appreciate the robust discussion on today's Bill, which I've just caught part of, and your Bill clearly raises a lot of questions and debate. Clearly also trying to address an important issue, finding the right balance between building housing, which I think is fair to say.

We're in a crisis on housing and housing affordability in the state, while addressing real concerns about wildfire risk. I want to thank you for working with my staff to address concerns that we had about the preliminary determination and petition processes and for accepting an alternative process to incentivize neighborhoods and communities to take action to reduce wildfire risk on their developments.

I've been talking with staff just wanted to clarify that under SB 610, and your Bill was such a positive development that apparently one of our colleagues in the Administration felt the need to adopt a similar approach. But under 610, the state fire marshal would adopt wildfire mitigation area maps to replace fire hazard severity zone maps.

The intent of the two approaches are very, very similar, placing that authority with the state fire marshal. But I will just say this. We don't know yet what the outcome of that Bill is going to be. We have not had a chance to analyze the pros and cons in this Committee.

We have vetted your Bill, and so with that, we are going to recommend an aye vote. And so we, dzo we have a motion on this Bill yet?

Yes, I do.

I'm sorry, a motion from Senator Seyarto. And the motion is do pass as amended to Governmental Organizations. Would you like to close?

I would bet. Again, forgive me, but I don't know that the opposition got to speak. Did they? Did they get to come up? Okay. Not that I'm wanting to work against my Bill, but I just wanted. Okay. All right. I got a little distracted because there's so many things going on here.

But I really appreciate coming to the Senate because this is what you guys do. We're talking about the critical issues in California all within this Bill, housing affordability, our insurance issues, of course, saving lives and fire hazards. So all in this Bill. But I do definitely take sincerely some Senators concerns. I definitely.

It's kind of a crossroads when you bring a Bill forward, because there are people lining up on both sides, some that would never accept any map and no growth. And that is part of the big dialogue, which is from the environmentalists to people who want to see Californians housed, and sometimes there's never a bridge there.

But with this Bill, it's simply, in its simplest form, a way to update maps every five years and severe fire hazard areas. Taking in consideration some of the things that we have learned over the years, which is home hardening, defensible space, vegetation management, and fuel reduction efforts.

And I think, as we put that together, there is a space for this type of Bill and taking it to one entity. But I hear the idea of the board of forestry versus the fire marshal. I think the fire marshal does come with expertise and credentials and will continue to work with opposition as we move forward.

So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Assemblywoman, we have a motion. Motion does pass is amended to Governmental Organizations from Senator Seyarto, assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 7-0. We'll leave that on call.

Thank you, Members.

All right, our next Bill is file item number five, AB 2103 by Assemblywoman Pellerin. You can present whenever you're ready.

So thank you, chair and Members. I accept the Committee's amendments, which add public hearing provisions for the bill's land acquisition process, and I look forward to working with the Department of State Parks and the Committee to further review this provision.

Following the devastating 2020 CZU Lightning Complex wildfire in my district, which burned across the entirety of Big Basin Redwood State Park and portions of surrounding parks, the California Department of Parks and Recreation initiated a planning process to reimagine Big Basin Redwoods.

Conservation nonprofits that partner with state parks often purchase properties with the intention and shared goal with state parks to ultimately transfer ownership of land parcels to the Department for long term protection.

The current process of land acquisition, which requires approval of the Public Works Board and Department of General Services, is often delayed when conservation organizations end up having to wait many months or years to transfer property to the Department.

It creates uncertainty for conservation partner entities regarding whether the land they purchase will be bought or accepted by by the Department in a timely manner. This uncertainty and untimeliness will often leave organizations in a vulnerable position, as they must continue to own and manage high conservation value lands for long periods of time.

AB 2103 will help provide certainty to acquisition partners by adding property acquired for Big Basin Redwoods, Ano Nuevo, and Butano state parks to the list of exemptions from the Public Works Board process.

By speeding up the land acquisition process, this bill will serve as a model for permanently protecting lands for conservation, cultural, and recreational purposes, as well as helping us meet our climate goals. With me to testify in support is Rachel Dan, representing the Semper Byrons Fund.

Thank you. Are you up with just one witness to Assemblywoman?

I have one amazing witness.

Okay, one amazing witness. Up to four minutes to speak. Thank you.

Thank you and good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Rachel Dan. I'm the Director of government relations at Semper Byrons Front. Semper Byrons Front is California's first and oldest land trust and the proud sponsor of this Bill.

For over 100 years, we have been a committed partner with state parks to partner with state parks to protect and connect the redwood forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains.

As you all may know, in 2020, the CZU Lightning complex fire burned over the entirety of Big Basins Redwood State park, as well as portions of Butano, Ano Nuevo state parks as well. In the wake of this catastrophic fire, state parks initiated a planning process to reimagine the future of Big Basin.

The resulting vision describes the need to acquire additional land to support the relocation of visitor-serving facilities previously located within some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the park, as well as the need to strengthen landscape connectivity, improve forest health, and enhance climate resiliency within Big Basin, Butano and Ano Nuevo, all of which will require new land acquisitions to achieve.

To help fulfill the reimagining of Big Basin, the Department partnered with conservation organizations in the Santa Cruz Mountains region, including Semper Byron's Front, to develop a tool for identifying land parcels adjacent to, within, or near the current boundaries that are essential to realizing the department's vision. Conservation organizations like ours are key partners in acquiring these lands.

We often need to move quickly to purchase and protect parcels, which we then transfer to the Department. Unfortunately, the current process for transferring land to state parks is drawn out and can take years. In the meantime, partners like us are limited in our ability to manage additional key parcels.

AB 2103 will pilot a streamlined process for transferring lands associated with the rebuilding of Big Basin and surrounding parks to the Department by allowing the Department to acquire property on its own behalf, much like the Wildlife Conservation Board, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a number of other key agencies already do. AB 2103 is a crucial step in rebuilding the parks that have been decimated by catastrophic climate events in recent years and fulfilling the vision of a connected climate, resilient, and accessible state park system in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

We respectfully request your support for this measure today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of the bill? Me too your testimony? Go ahead.

Hello. Abigail Smith on behalf of Save the Redwoods League, the California State Parks Foundation and Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District all in support.

Thank you.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the County Of Santa Cruz in support.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any seeing. No other witnesses in support. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Senator Laird.

Thank you. Even though we were talking and, you know, since this last Saturday night, I was at our annual Farm Bureau dinner and it was up right by this fire in a little draw. That was the only place that didn't burn.

We were in this beautiful meadow with burnt redwood trees all around us, and that is the area that we are talking about. But what we're really talking about here is a process that is broken.

And the Public Works Board process requires that if we have natural resources, lands to acquire, we delegate it to CalTrans, the Department of General Services and the Department of Finance. When I was in the Assembly, I did a bill that said, would you please, the Administration, propose an alternative way of structuring.

The Public Works board, and they did it. They gave me three options they said they could live with. I amended one into a bill, and then they didn't like it. The Administration had suggested it.

It took us until 2018 when Assemblymember Berman did a bill at the request of the Administration to add the Natural Resources Resources Agency to the public worksport for consideration of any land involving an agency in the natural resources agency.

So we finally could have somebody from Parks or Fish and Wildlife or others if the land was actually being acquired to make sure there was that perspective.

Interestingly, a key cabinet member that I won't name at the time that was over one of these agencies says, we should abolish the whole public works Board, the cabinet member over it, because they said this, we appropriate the money and the budget. We direct the Department. Everybody else goes off and acts when that happens.

In this case, we set up an additional barrier that takes months and months and delays everything. And yet, at the time, that was not in the cards. It was the best we could do to bring the resources, people at the table.

What this bill does is it basically says, we'll let the departments and resources for these lands in this area decide without that additional barrier, how to deal with them. And when it comes to fire, rebuilding and other things, timeliness is very important.

And this is a role reversal, because I was in front of the chair of the Elections Committee, in an Assembly Committee doing a redistricting bill for San Luis Obispo, and she says, I want it for the whole state. Okay, we'll do this, but I want to. I want this for the whole state.

I'll do this bill, but I want this for the whole state, because that is an added barrier that doesn't help us in any way. And there was even a time when I couldn't figure out who was there.

These nameless people that wouldn't sign letters would block things, and you couldn't tell who they were when we were trying to get things done before the opportunities was lost or lost. As much as I wish this was a statewide bill, this is the right direction. And if you accept the motion now, I would move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. One of my concerns with this bill, and there's a few others like it, is we keep talking about acquiring and acquiring and acquiring land.

We have a bunch of habitat agencies out there, conservation agencies, that are trying to acquire land and having the state, you know, the state is actually pulling back funds to do that, and they're also not doing a great job at taking care of the lands that we have.

And one of the reasons that we have these catastrophic fires that wipe out all of these areas is because we're not taking care of them correctly.

So how does this bill help in that effort so that the fires that you had talked about, Santa Cruz Mountains, don't continue to reoccur because we actually start doing something positive in those areas to ensure that we are good stewards of taking care of some of the things that Mother Nature doesn't do anymore because we have intervened too much and also supporting the efforts that, that are already out there.

And these are long 30 years in the making efforts, and they're still not done. And we're talking 600,000 acres and we already had 400,000 and we still can't get it done.

I feel like the state needs to take care of what it has first before it keeps adding on to without a plan for taking care of care of these areas. So does this have any way of making that better? Because we have a $1.2 billion backlog in maintenance.

No. Well, I'll attempt to answer and then I'll ask my witness also. But these lands provide connection between other parcels owned by the state, and it's going to actually help them in their fire management and mitigation efforts. So it's going to create a more connected landscape so they can get from one place to another if needed. But I'll let our.

Senator, would you like the witness to respond? Yes, go ahead. Yes.

Thank you, Senator. Yeah. In addition to what Assemblymember Pellerin just said, I would just add that in this particular case, this district bill is really about rebuilding the state parks after the fire, for instance, where the visitor center is and was in Big Basin is right at the center of where the old growth redwoods are.

And what the park wants to do is to move the visitor center away from those old growth redwoods. And part of that process is finding adjacent property to put the new visitor center on. And my organization has identified those properties, and they're not large properties to then, you know, transfer to state parks.

So then they can build a new visitor center there and have a shuttle system to take the folks into that area of the park. So it's not about, in this case at least, acquiring large tracts of land to then transfer and make a new park, but really about revisioning what these three parks can be for the future.

So this is just specifically these three parks.

Exactly, yes.

Yes.

But at the same time, it's going to take more resources away from an effort that we're not really good at accomplishing already. And that's my concern with it.

I think it's going to enhance the ability for the state parks to manage the land that they have and building it out as they reimagine it.

Connectivity was actually more designed for animal movement and habitat movement, and those are built into existing habitat plans that are being, like I said, put on the back burner. We're not getting them done.

And if we would just do that and then talk about adding on to other responsibilities, I'd be a lot more comfortable with bills like this. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Senator Dahle.

I want to just follow up on maybe. I know this is a district bill and I have not seen a park I don't like. But unfortunately, in my district, I have the most visited park in the State of California, which is Bernie Falls. It's beautiful.

It's right down the road from my house. I love it. But we're trying to. We're doing some maintenance on it right now, but the park service has been not very good at being able to manage and do the maintenance that we need. I mean, billions of dollars and not. And we found money.

When I first came in 2012, we found there was $50 million. That was. It was a problem.

So I'm going to support your bill, but I want to say, you know, to the, to the folks that go out and buy these lands, the third parties that put them together, you're risking something when you do that, and you're risking the process of getting paid back in a timely manner.

And we're going into a budget that is going to be rugged, I think, and even those of us on both sides out that wanted to see the WCB money restored in the budget, it still isn't.

And I don't know, maybe it's coming, the governor's coming with it, but, you know, those are the monies that help protect this lands. So I just want to let it. I just want to put it out there. I won't be around.

But I love parks, but we don't do a very good job of maintenance them and taking care of them after we buy them. And that's unfortunate because we see these fires and we see lots of non management out there.

So I just want, for the record, to show somebody who loves parks and was on the State of our conservancy for seven years doing a lot of good conservation. We don't do a very good job of following through with the money after we acquire these projects. And that's unfortunate. So I will be supporting your bill today.

But I just want for the record to know that.

Thank you for that. Senator Dahle, seeing no other comments or questions from dais, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. The motion. And I just should clarify. You are accepting the amendments?

Okay. Fantastic. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Yes, I am.

The motion is due. Passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The count is 7-0. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you very much, Assemblywoman. All right, we'll move on to our next Bill. I think we have Assemblywoman Reyes in the room. That file, item number seven, AB 2440. Assemblywoman, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and members, today I present to you AB 2440. I'm looking for my witness. Which will incorporate the State Oarks Department and other agencies managing state owned lands into the state's goals to conserve 30% of lands and coastal waters by 2030.

The bill would ensure equitable access to the outdoors for all and specify reporting requirements around the 30 by 30 goal.

Comprising 1.6 million acres of protected land, including almost one quarter of California's coastline, and preserving a wide range of ecosystems, from coastal wetlands to inland desert, to every major forest ecosystem in the state, California State Parks are an invaluable asset in conservation and providing public access to California's incredible landscapes.

Given the unique role and size of our state parks, it is critical that the state promote and support the acquisition stewardship of state lands and strive to create opportunities for equitable access to the outdoors while fulfilling the 30 by 30 goals.

As the Chair of the Select Committee on State Parks, equitable access to the outdoors has been my number one priority. Our hearing last year was focused on achieving outdoor equity, and this bill will also require that the legislature receive an annual update on progress towards expanding access to nature.

For all Californians here to testify and support and answer any technical questions is Rachel Norton, Executive Director of the California State Parks Foundation, and Rachel Dann, Director of Governmental Relations at Sempervirens Fund.

We got the two Rachels. Okay, you have two minutes.

Rachels in support of parks. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I am indeed Rachel Norton, Executive Director of California State Parks Foundation. We are a member supported nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the California State Park system for the benefit of all and the proud sponsors of AB 2440.

As you well know, climate change and loss of biodiversity pose an existential threat to California's ecosystems and wildlife. The evidence is clear, climate change is having detrimental impacts on California's people and places.

It is critical that we act quickly to fulfill the state's 30 by 30 goals of protecting and restoring biodiversity, expanding access to nature, and building resilience to climate change. California State Park system has a critical role to play in reaching these goals, including 1.6 million acres of protected land in almost a quarter of California's coastline.

California State Parks are an invaluable asset in conservation, historical preservation, and providing public access to California's incredible landscapes. Unfortunately, the state's massive investments in 30 by 30 over the past three years have largely overlooked state parks.

Since 2021, California has invested over $1.0 billion from the general fund to fulfill our 30 by 30 goals and support nature-based climate solutions. But only a tiny fraction of this nature-based solutions funding was directed to state parks.

That tiny fraction was $11.5 million for sea level rise adaptation in state parks, but now more than half of those funds have been clawed back due to the current budget crisis.

In addition to the state supporting the conservation of natural lands by private partners, we must also prioritize and support the responsible stewardship of state held lands in the pursuit of protecting California's rich biodiversity.

AB 2440 will clearly recognize the important role that state parks and other state land managers play in achieving 30 by 30 and will increase transparency in the states progress towards fulfilling this goal. I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is also Rachel, Rachel Dann from Sempervirens Fund. As you just heard, our organization has partnered with state park since our founding 125 years ago to protect our California's iconic redwood forests, including permanently protecting 6 sq mi of old growth redwoods in 1900 that are now big Basin Redwoods State Park.

Most recently, in 2021, our organization protected and transferred six properties totaling 222 acres of parklands to the state to enhance and expand Castle Rock State Park.

Protecting these properties ensures that they both continue to be well managed for conservation and resiliency, augmenting California's 30 by 30 and climate, wildfire and community resiliency goals and formally expand the parks and incredible recreational experiences into new lands, habitats and vistas.

State parks owns and manages over a million acres of rich habitat and iconic landscapes across the state and welcomes millions of visitors from across the globe each year. As you know, AB 2440 recognizes this important work and supports the key role of California State Parks in fulfilling the state's 30 by 30 and equitable outdoor access goals.

This bill ensures that the Natural Resources Agency provides support to state agency partners to responsibly steward state managed lands and requires progress reports on our progress to ensure that all Californians have access to our incredible natural and outdoor spaces. For these reasons, we proudly support AB 2440 and request your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much to the second Rachel. Do we have any other witnesses in support of the bill? Me too testimony? Thanks.

Good afternoon. Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, and Save the Redwoods League, in support.

Thank you.

Alex Loomer on behalf of Mojave Desert Land Trust, in support.

Thank you.

Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California n support.

Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Oh, wait, we have one more coming through. Maybe two more. Okay, me-too testimony.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll move to any witnesses in opposition. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments or questions from the committee?

We have a motion from Senator Limon. Just want to say I applaud your intent to strengthen the goal of 30 by 30. Obviously, this is crucial for biodiversity and preventing extinction.

And we all, all of us here up on the dais love our state parks and would like to see more opportunities to increase their diverse land holdings, especially given the need to provide more equitable access in the state. But as analysis points out, state parks currently faces a $1 billion maintenance backlog for its existing parks.

So, this will be a challenge. And as this bill moves forward, I would urge you to consider including alternatives to prioritize in achieving the 30 by 30 goal. But with that, would you like to close?

The analysis does provide two very good alternatives, and I think clearly neither one of those is excluded in the program. But I think having further discussion regarding. Regarding both of those, I think would be important. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Assemblywoman, we have a motion from Senator Limon. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

That vote count is 3-0. We'll leave it on call. Thank you very much, Assemblywoman.

Thank you very much.

All right, our next bill. We have file item number 11. Assemblywoman Friedman, AB 2875. You can present whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Wetlands provide critical habitat for endangered species and many other resident wildlife and fish populations. They're also important to local communities as they serve as natural water purifiers that absorb pollutants to keep the water in inland lakes and streams clear.

By storing water, wetlands also operate as natural flood control to protect our communities from flooding and drought, and they help buffer communities from climate change. Historical filing and development projects, however, have reduced California wetlands to a mere 10% of their original extent, leaving many communities vulnerable. The loss of coastal wetlands is even more alarming.

95% of formerly abundant lagoons and marshes along California's 1,100 miles coastline have been destroyed. In 1993, Governor Pete Wilson issued Executive Order W 5993 establishing a state policy of no net loss and long term gain of wetlands. Since then, however, California has continued to lose more wetland acreage than it provides through restoration and mitigation.

The Federal Clean Water Act is considered the most powerful tool for safeguarding water quality wetlands and riparian habitat. However, starting in 2001, in a series of decisions, federal courts have limited the type of water bodies and wetlands that receive federal protections.

In 2023, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling and Sackett versus Environmental Protection Agency that has had enormous ramifications for the health of the nation's and California's wetlands and waterways because it excluded many types of state waters, including certain wetlands, from the Clean Water Act.

The Sackett Decision also upheld states authorities to address water pollution by a regulation of land and water use. California has law, the Porter Colon Water Quality Control Act to protect the wetlands that the Federal Government can no longer protect.

Governor Newsom's 2024 proposed budget includes funding aimed to have the state take on the role that had been conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US EPA, but will no longer do to the Sackett Decision. To be clear, AB 2875 is not creating any new protections or programs or providing any more enforcement authority.

It's not meant to stop new housing or development from happening. The bill will merely put into statute that it is the policy of the state to protect, conserve, and restore wetlands.

By enshrining this requirement into statute, we're making it clear that the state must take actions and advance policies to benefit wetlands, which has not always been the case. I am very proud that AB 2875 has had better bipartisan, unanimous support in the Assembly. Testifying today on behalf of our sponsor, Audubon California, is Kevin Hunting, and I would request your aye vote on this important bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. As you hear, my name is Kevin Hunting. I'm here representing Audubon California; that's a sponsor of AB 2875. Audubon California has about 118,000 members statewide across 48 affiliated chapters, all of whom love birds and are passionate about bird conservation.

Audubon California's mission is to restore and conserve natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the Earth's biological diversity.

Audubon's proud to sponsor 2075 because it would put into law the state's longstanding policy that you just heard about to ensure no net loss and long term gain of wetlands at a time when California wetlands are at serious risk.

While the California has a no net loss policy for wetlands, ensuring that net loss, much less long term gain, remains an elusive goal. According to a recent report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California continued to lose wetlands in many parts of the state between 2009 and 2019 despite this policy.

Establishing no net loss and long term gain in law would be an important step towards reversing this trend. Historically, California's Central Valley had more than 4 million acres of wetlands, and as you heard, about 95% of those have been lost. There's about 200,000 acres remaining today.

The loss of wetlands has a profound impact on wildlife populations, and especially migratory birds. Experts estimate that historically, about 60 million birds were migrating to California's wetlands each winter, including about 35 to 40 million ducks and geese. When the eminent ornithologist Frank Chapman visited Los Banos in 1903, he wrote, I've never seen more abundant.

Today's waterfowl populations in California have declined to approximately five to 6 million ducks and geese that rely on these wetlands for resting and feeding during migration. Even though diminished, these California populations comprise about 60% of the Pacific flyways waterfowl, and about 20% of the continental populations.

Similarly, most shorebirds and songbird populations that depend on the wetlands have experienced significant population declines, and today, many of these wetland dependent species are in peril because of these wetland losses. Overall, wetlands provide values that no other ecosystem can, values that are even more critical as California experiences the intensifying impacts of climate change.

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, in many places comparable to rainforests and coral reefs. And in the context of one of the most diverse bird and wildlife regions on our planet, they are particularly important here. It is in the Senate's best interest to conserve these wetland habitats.

We've heard about the 30 by 30 goals today, and as California strives to achieve these adopted goals, one of the most effective actions will be to ensure the net loss of these wetlands. When it comes to wetland conservation, the most cost effective method to conserve them is to protect the remaining wetlands that we already have.

AB 2875 provides important leadership for other states and provides a model using state law to shield wetland resources from efforts to erode federal protections. By codifying this policy, we would demonstrate our commitment to science based wetland conservations that benefit our public health, biodiversity, and support our efforts to combat the effects of climate change.

Thank you very much. At this time, we will take all the me toos in favor of this bill. Come on up. State your name, the organization you represent, your support for the bill.

Good afternoon. Alex Loomer, on behalf of the California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Sonoma Land Trust, and Pacific Forest Trust, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman, on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, and Peninsula Open Space Trust, in support.

Good afternoon. Natalie Brown, on behalf of the Planning Conservation League, in support.

Good afternoon. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy, in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in support.

Katie McCammon, 350 Sacramento, in support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Good afternoon. Darryl Little with NRDC, in support. Thank you.

Gabriella Facio with Sierra Club California, in support.

Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the California State Parks Foundation, in support.

Candice Meneghin, with Friends of the Santa Clara River and Coastal Ranches Conservancy, in support.

Bart Broome, Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water. Our board has taken a support if amended position on this bill. We're working with the author's office on some language and findings that would just clarify that there's some need for flexibility in order to prevent inundation of wetlands due to sea level rise. And I think that we're very close and we very much appreciate the author's staff.

Okay, is there anybody that is going to speak as a lead witness in opposition to this bill? I don't see anybody scrambling out of their seats. So does anybody want to come up and do a me too in opposition to the bill? If not, we will bring it back to the dais for any additional questions, comments, concerns. We have a motion to move the bill. I did have a couple of concerns about the bill.

One of them is we do these, what sound like very simple things to try to conserve wetlands, whether it's wetlands, blue line streams, and that's a federal thing. But then we start discovering that way up, way upstream from some of these wetland areas, they become impacted because somebody decides that somehow that's impacting the wetlands.

And in this environment that we're having, we already can do, we already have the ability to protect these wetlands and other things that are in the environment. That's what our CEQA process is all about and also the NEPA process.

My concern is that we're kind of piling on more that eventually starts to clash with our goals to build housing. In areas like in my area, we don't have a whole lot of wetlands. In my area, we have a couple fueled by rain, and that's it.

But I've also seen a lot of projects get torpedoed because there's an interpretation by somebody that somehow this is going to wind up affecting a wetland, and then that turns into a lawsuit.

And it kind of makes the issue of how we're going to build the housing we need for all the people that need housing more and more difficult to achieve. And so this, I don't know that it's as needed. We already are taking care of some of this stuff. I'll probably lay off your bill, and with that, I will let you close. Go ahead.

Thank you. I appreciate the concerns. I'm a very pro housing legislator, so I typically don't do legislation that I think is going to stop needed housing. At the same time, wetlands play a really important role to keep housing safe. And this bill is in response to the Sackett Decision to make sure that we don't go backwards.

It's not going to, like you said, change what the state's doing, but it will be protective in the future to put this into statute. And those wetlands are desperately needed. A lot of us care about the birds. We care about preserving what we have left.

And I would hope that our local governments don't make up reasons to not do housing. And that can happen with all manner of issues. This is not adding new enforcement. It's not changing any current policy. It's really enshrining what we have.

But I certainly hear your concerns, and, you know, for whoever's listening out there, don't make up an excuse that involves a wetland because it hurts our efforts at conservation.

Okay. Thank you, Assemblywoman. We have a motion on the bill, a motion from Senator Padilla. Do pass. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote on that is 5-0. We'll leave it on call for now and we'll move back in the file item or file order to file item number six, AB 2320 by Assemblywoman Irwin. Assemblywoman, you can proceed whenever you're ready. Long time no see.

Did you present your bill that quickly?

I'm very efficient.

Okay. Well, I'm pleased to present AB 2320 today. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the committee staff for their hard work on this Bill in 2020. Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N8220, creating the 30 by 30 Initiative to conserve 30% of our lands and coastal waters by 2030.

A key part of the 30 by 30 Initiative is the use of nature-based solutions to address climate change. AB 2320 would require the California Natural Resources Agency to identify wildlife corridors and fish passage restoration projects and include them in its annual report to the Legislature.

This bill would further require the Wildlife Conservation Board to prioritize projects that protect and create new wildlife corridors. Wildlife connectivity is a critical step in protecting California's rich biodiversity. Last year, BB 12, the first Bear known to live in Santa Monica Mountains in nearly a decade, was fatally struck by a vehicle crossing Highway 101.

He had successfully crossed California freeways at least five times and was killed 16 miles from the ongoing construction of the largest wildlife crossing in the country, the Wallace Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, which is in my district.

Similarly, this weekend, on Saturday, a mountain lion was found dead after a vehicle struck close to the site of the same wildlife crossing. Stories such as those of BB 12 and the beloved mountain lion, P 22, are a testament to the fact that we must increase habitat connectivity for California's wildlife.

With me here today to testify are the bill's sponsors. Candice Meneghin from the Coastal Ranches Conservancy, and Abigail Smet on behalf of the Friends of the Santa Clara River.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members. My name is Candice Meneghin. I'm the Executive Director of Coastal Ranches Conservancy. We are a proud co-sponsor of the bill, and for the last 20 years we have been a fierce advocate for the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara County, and that includes reducing wildlife collisions along the Gaviota Pass.

We are grateful for Assembly Member Irwin's leadership on connectivity needs statewide because fragmentation of natural areas is the number one cause of species decline in California. Wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are critically important for movement and species adaptation during times of climate change.

Conservation experts agree that the top priority for biodiversity conservation is to protect habitat and to provide connectivity between that habitat. And AB 2320 is a push to implement known priorities that were identified in the 2010 Department of Fish and Wildlife Caltrans State Essential Habitat Connectivity Report.

And as was mentioned, and as we have witnessed while we've been moving this bill through the Legislature, black bears have had the I-5 at a standstill being in traffic. We've lost a mountain lion this past weekend. We're picking up wild mountain lions in the Royal Honda Preserve in Santa Barbara County.

I've seen fresh spoor along Gaviota Creek, and our species certainly need all the help with regards to terrestrial connectivity. But we also have multiple fish passage barriers in our landscapes, too.

Gaviota Creek has 14 fish passage barriers associated with Caltrans infrastructure on the highway system, and so connectivity is essential to biodiversity resilience and bolstering 30 by 30 objectives, as well as the salmon strategy for a hotter dryer future.

And so using these keystone species such as the federal endangered Southern California Steelhead and South Coast and Central Coast Mountain lion populations.

If you could wrap up.

I'm happy to answer any questions and respectfully request your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Abigail Smet, on behalf of the Friends of the Santa Clara River. I want to echo a lot of the comments of the previous testimony and also just point out that this bill would take already identified wildlife connectivity barriers and just make sure that those are being addressed through the state's 30 by 30 progress tracking.

Obviously, this is a pressing issue statewide, and this is a really key piece of the 30 by 30 goal and effort that we want to make sure is not overlooked. So I want to echo the previous comments and request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of the bill? #MeToo testimony? Name, affiliation, support of the measure.

Alex Leumer, on behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sonoma Land Trust, in strong support.

Thank you.

Tasha Newman, on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts and the Peninsula Open Space Trust, in support.

Thank you.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities, in support.

Thank you.

Gabriella Facio with Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League, in support.

Thank you.

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Kristin Gorey, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Sempervirens Fund, and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sam Davidson for Trout Unlimited, in support.

Thank you.

Ruth McDonald, on behalf of Climate Reality Project Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley chapters, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll move on to any opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none in the room, we'll bring it back to the members. Do any members have any comments or questions on the bill? Seeing none, do we have a motion on the bill? We have a motion from Senator Limon. Would you like to close, Assemblywoman?

Yes. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion, and the motion is--I'm sorry--do pass as amended to Appropriations. File Item Six: AB 2320. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

The vote count is five/zero. We'll leave it on call.

Thank you.

All right, so I see we have Assemblywoman Papan in the room. So I think you're next up on file item order. This is File Item Number 13. Thank you for waiting, Assemblywoman Addis. You're next up. It's AB 3220. Assemblywoman, you can present whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good afternoon, Members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and by also thanking the consultant for their work with my staff on this bill.

AB 3220 is a simple bill that requests that the Department of Fish and Wildlife consider seeking state verification authority from the Army Corps of Engineers to better streamline the mariculture permitting process. Mariculture can significantly benefit the ocean ecosystems if done right by improving water temperature, acidity, carbon sequestration, and more.

Yet, the demand for environmentally beneficial shellfish and seaweed projects far outpace the regulatory permitting processes that are currently in place. Permitting a mariculture project involves multiple state, federal, and local agencies. For those requiring the use of state water bottom leases. In California, permittees must go seek permits from roughly a dozen different agencies.

Over the last decade, federal, state, and local agencies have been looking for ways to streamline the permitting process for mariculture. A federal report from 2014 recommended the permitting authority be delegated to the states through agreement.

Since the report was issued, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida have been granted state verification authority, which has led to greater permitting efficiency in all three states.

In an effort to increase permitting efficiency in California, AB 3220 simply requests that the Department of Fish and Wildlife investigate means by which it can streamline the federal permit process of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies whose approval is necessary to operate a restorative ocean farming project in California.

This bill has bipartisan support and no no votes. And with me to testify today in support of the bill is Jade Clemons from BlueSEA Director. Come on up, Jade. And after that, I have Maddelyn Harden, PhD candidate from USC.

Thank you. You each have two minutes, and you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon to the Chair and Members and Assemblywoman. My name is Jade Clemons. I'm Director of the Blue Sustainable Economy Alliance at AltaSea. It is a privilege to be here today to speak on behalf of and in support of regenerative ocean farming and sustainable aquaculture practitioners.

I will not repeat all the amazing benefits that the assemblywoman just mentioned and that my colleague here will elaborate on as well. One benefit, though, of mariculture that I'd like to double tap on is the economic opportunity that this industry represents for California.

With the vast majority of seafood products, both plants and animals, consumed in the U.S. being imported, that's about $25 billion worth of imports. $100 million worth of that, just based on seaweed alone.

There is extraordinary potential to bring jobs and economic development in this sector to this state and reduce those imports, reducing reliance on imports by bolstering domestic production that is well-regulated and done in sustainable fashion would create a resilient supply chain with the added benefit of all of the environmental benefits that were mentioned.

Seaweed aquaculture is the fastest-growing sector in this industry, and this industry can thrive here in California. To see this sector reach its full potential in California will require policy support.

Lengthy, complex permitting processes are consistently flagged as one of the obstacles to research and commercial development in this space, and AB 3220 is one piece of the puzzle to address this challenge, investigating the possible efficiency gains resulting from state verification authority is worthwhile.

It will reduce the burden on applicants, and it will allow the state more control and authority over permitting administrative processes. Two of the three stated goals for the forthcoming Ocean Protection Council State Aquaculture Action Plan relate to permitting in governments. State, sorry, permitting and governance.

State verification authority would be one more tool at the state's disposal to implement the aquaculture action plan and reap the benefits of a thriving sustainable aquaculture industry in our great state. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Whenever you're ready.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, Assemblywoman, Mister Chair, and Assembly Members. My name is Maddelyn Harden. I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California. I have also worked for over 10 years in the sustainable calculation and bivalve mariculture industries.

And I have spent the last five years dedicating my doctoral dissertation to understanding the genetic underpinnings of giant kelp heat stress response in California. And with that, I would like to stand in strong support of AB 3220. And I would like to also highlight the immense environmental benefits of both kelp and seaweed aquaculture and mariculture, excuse me, in California.

Both kelp and seaweed offer immense ecosystem services. Seaweed or kelp in California act as carbon sinks, and they are very, very fast growing. So, when we actively cultivate kelp, we take that out of the environment and thereby engage in a nature-based carbon removal system.

Further, bivalves, like mussels and oysters, they actually uptake a huge amount of water, and in doing so, they filter pollutants from the ecosystem, namely phosphorus and nitrogen.

And there is a wonderful case study in which NOAA reported in the case of Hog Island Oyster Company in the San Francisco Bay, the water quality surrounding the mariculture lines for their oysters had actually drastically improved following farming efforts. Finally, there is a method of sustainable mariculture, and it's called integrative multitrophic aquaculture.

It's where you take two species from different trophic levels, or multiple species, rather, from different trophic levels, and you can grow them together in such a way to create a closed-loop waste stream. You can do this with both kelp and bivalves insomuch that the bivalves can release waste and kelp can uptake it.

This creates a closed-loop waste stream as well as a carbon sink and does not necessitate any herbicides, pesticides, or otherwise feed additives into the system. So, in essence, it is very sustainable permaculture for the open ocean. In closing.

Could start to wrap up.

Yes, absolutely. The ecosystem services of kelp and seaweeds are immeasurable. And I would just like to really strongly support AB 3220. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay, appreciate that. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of the bill? Me, too testimony? Name, affiliate. Seeing none. Okay, we'll move on to any opposition witnesses. Do we have any other opposition? Any opposition witnesses in the room? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Members.

Any comments or questions from the Members?

I would move the Bill.

Okay, fantastic. We have a motion. Thank you very much for this bill. Seems like an important step forward for sustainability. And I thank you for working with my staff on this. Would you like to close?

I got nothing to say other than kelp, kelp, and kelp. So, I really appreciate the help with kelp, and the enthusiasm of my witnesses is nothing short of contagious. It's. It's just delightful to hear all the good that can come from it. So, respectfully request an aye vote.

I was going to say nori, but I want to say aye not no.

Exactly.

All right, we have a motion from Senator Eggman on the Bill. Sorry for the dad joke. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote on that is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. Thank you very much, Assemblywoman. And we'll move on to Assemblywoman Addis. Thank you for waiting there. File item number 15, AB 3233. And you can begin whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you so much, chair and Members and our advocates that are here today. Today I'm here to present AB 3233, the local environmental Choice and Safety act. And I do want to confirm that I'm accepting the Committee amendments at face value.

I will say this bill is a direct response to an issue that I have heard from my constituents, particularly in Monterey County. But beyond that, it is a persistent problem that applies to all of us here and to all Californians.

In recent years, we have heard from medical professionals, educators, local governments, parents, and countless others about the impacts of oil and gas operations on communities. We have read research on the impacts to public health, including increased risk of asthma and cardiac disease, most especially in low-income communities and communities of color.

We have witnessed the increased risk of earthquakes from drilling and oil spills and air pollution, and we have heard concerns about depreciating property values as well as decreased investment in residential areas near oil and gas.

As a result, many cities and counties have taken steps to reevaluate whether to maintain these operations, especially as California reduces its dependence on fossil fuels and creates a carbon neutral future. Monterey County, San Benito County, Los Angeles County, Alameda City, and Culver City have all introduced ordinances and passed local measures to reduce or eliminate oil and gas.

In doing so, they have made it their responsibility to do their own cost benefit analysis of whether to keep such activities in their communities and to determine if any economic benefit is worth the negative consequences to health, safety, tourism, the environment, and much more.

Despite the popular and overwhelmingly popular support for these local measures, the California Supreme Court ruled last fall that the local measure in Monterey County would not hold due to how we have written state law, and this invalidates the actions of our communities, disenfranchises voters who have voiced their concerns, and ultimately limits the ability of local governments to protect their communities.

We do believe this is a dangerous precedent that we can't ignore. So AB 3233 would enable local communities to make their own decisions about their welfare, health and economy. And specifically, this bill clarifies local government's authority to limit or prohibit oil and gas operations, methods and locations in their jurisdictions.

I will say AB 3233 does not ban new oil or gas operations and does not mandate that local entities stop activities. It simply clarifies that they do have the power to do so.

Joining me today to testify and support is Hollin Kretzmann from the Center of Biological Diversity, as well as Ada Waelder from the California State Association of Counties.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. You have each two minutes to testify. You can proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, Chairman Min and Committee Members Hollin Kretzmann for the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm an attorney with more than a decade of experience in California oil and gas laws.

The center proudly sponsors AB 3233, the Local Environmental Choice and Safety Act, a bill that would preserve the ability of cities and counties to use their local authority to protect their residents from oil and gas pollution.

It's common sense that cities and counties ought to be able to decide whether and under what conditions polluting activities can take place in their jurisdictions after carefully weighing their constituents voices and potential harms to health and safety and the environment. That's the way it's always been in California.

Cities and counties have local rules applying to all kinds of industries, including oil and gas.

These can range from straight up bans to setback minimums to, in the case of oil and gas in Kern County, local ordinances to promote further production of oil and gas last year, the California Supreme Court invalidated parts of Monterey County's oil and gas ordinance on narrow grounds based on an outdated 1961 provision of the state oil and gas code.

But the oil industry has distorted this ruling and has used it to sow confusion about what local governments can and can't do. The industry's threats and intimidation have had a chilling effect on local governments who want more clarity in the state law about the scope of local authorities.

AB 3233 would put an end to this confusion by updating the state public resources code to make it crystal clear that local governments can enact protections from oil and gas development and specifying that they may prohibit any extraction techniques such as fracking, wastewater disposal or steam injection.

It will also confirm that the state oil and gas supervisor must prioritize health and safety of California and and protect the environment and climate. As California moves toward a cleaner and more sustainable future, we urge you to support AB 3233.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Ada Waelder and I'm a legislative advocate with the California State Association of Counties, or CSAC, and we represent all 58 counties. We are pleased to support AB 3233, which would enhance local control over land use and zoning issues with regards to oil and gas companies in California.

Most land use decisions are delegated to local governments to ensure the best possible decisions are made for each individual community. Counties are responsible for weighing aesthetic, environmental, economic and safety concerns within their communities, and as such, we have a vested interest in maintaining clear authority to govern oil and gas related land uses throughout our jurisdictions.

That is why CSAC filed an amicus brief in Chevron versus County of Monterey, which challenged Measure Z, a local ordinance which aimed to restrict oil and gas development within the county. AB 3233 would clarify in statute that these local powers apply to the regulation of oil and gas production facilities.

To be clear, we're not here as a, you know, taking a position against oil and gas development. This bill would ensure that counties have the authority to balance their unique local needs and trade-offs that arise in the context of these projects, and it is for these reasons we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you so much. All right, do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of the Bill? Me too. Testimony? Name, affiliation and support of the measure.

Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Mercsmir on behalf of Contra Costa County in support.

Thank you

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Center for Food Safety in support.

Thank you

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy for Consumer Watchdog and enthusiastic support.

Thank you

Josh Gauger on behalf of the Counties of Los Angeles and Santa Cruz in support.

Thank you.

Tasha Newman on behalf of Earth Justice in support.

Thank you

Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you

Fatima Zubair with California environmental voters in support.

Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in support.

Thank you.

Katie McCammon in support on behalf of 350 Sacramento, 350 Bay Area Action, 350 Humboldt, San Diego 350 ban single use plastics and 1000 grandmothers for future generations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Environment California in support

Thank you

Justin Bowers cleanearthforkids.org strongly supports in addition, North County Equity and Justice, Facts, California nurses for environmental health and justice, eco-sustainability peeps, NCCA and activist San Diego strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you

Darrell Little with NRDC in support.

Thank you

Ruth McDonald for Climate Action California, Climate Reality Project, California Coalition and locally Sacramento area congregations together.

Thank you.

Hello Tyler Earl on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, Communities for a Better Environment, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and standing together against neighborhood drilling, Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe. I've been asked to note support for Central California Environmental Justice Network, Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas, Fossil Free California, Sunflower Alliance, Protect Monterey County, Elected Officials to protect America Code Blue, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network in nextgen California. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Lead witnesses in opposition? I guess so. Okay, you have up to four minutes, Mister chair Members.

Paul Deiro on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association, we believe this would fundamentally change the regulation of oil and gas extraction in California. It will result in a patchwork of local ordinances prohibiting, regulating, banning certain types of extraction. The state for centuries has viewed oil as a state resource, a valuable state resource.

The current percentages that we produce in California to meet the demand of drivers is 25%. We do in state oil production, California workers the safest methods in the world. This would exacerbate that problem and we would be importing more from foreign countries, primarily the Middle East and South America, that come here through vessels.

We have no pipelines delivering through to our refineries. For all of those reasons, we oppose the Bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition in the room? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to thanks to the Members. Do we have any Members who have any comments or questions? Senator Grove?

Thank you. I know I sound like a broken record because my county used to produce 70% of the state's oil and gas, and, you know, it was really sad. I went out to a Chevron tour with an individual, and I didn't pass one work truck, like, not one.

It was really sad because we used to employ thousands of people and 55% people, second chancers, 42. 2% people of color, women, veterans.

And it's just a sad thing what's happening with our oil and gas industry, especially when you have all the individuals that come up and go, climate, climate, climate, climate, climate, and importing this product that we use every day with 1.4 million to 1.6 million barrels every single day, Californians use. And we import it here on ships.

And if you look at the closest from Kern County in a pipeline, I don't know, refinery, I guess, PBF, it's like a dollar per barrel for transfer. When you ship it over, it's like six to $8 per barrel or $6 per barrel for a transfer.

So we would reduce the cost of fuel if we produced California oil by Californians for Californians here, we're already using it. This whole nonsense of transition off of oil and gas to what they call green energy, it's not happening. We're transitioning from domestically safely produced oil and gas by Californians for Californians from companies like Russia.

And they say, we don't buy it from Russia. But if you track vesselfinder.com like we do, you'll see that that ship leaves a Russian port, goes out in the middle of the ocean, transfers to another ship that comes right to Newport Beach. So, you know, and our policies have global consequences.

And when you look at carbon emissions and climate change, it's roughly based, 126 million metric tons of carbon emissions to bring a ship here to let us use the oil that we produce every single day.

You know, I was listening to the comments, and the bill says about counties and cities, and you should be able to have a voice and say what you want. You know, Kern County did an EIR.

The only one that has ever mitigated any type of carbon emissions was Lorelei over at, in our planning Department, and we still can't issue permits. We were for a while, and then it got taken away because of a court case.

So now we're working through that process again to mitigate grazing, because if we mitigated the grazing piece for cattle, then we would. The EIR probably wouldn't have been challenged. I just am saying that this. It circumvents what the courts are. A separate branch of government has said.

Also the issue that you have with patchwork production going on different rules, it's a statewide resource. It's not being used like it should be. We produce the safest, cleanest oil. They still do open air flaming in Iraq, where we get a lot of our oil. They still. They hang LGBTQ people.

The government of Iraq has said that they are degenerates. That's public. That just happened a few weeks ago or a month ago. And we buy oil from them. So to say that we care about policy and to say that we want good environmental policy doesn't show up by the policy that leaves this building.

Because, like I said, 126 million metric tons versus 12 metric tons from a pipeline that's 12 miles long versus bringing a ship here from foreign countries. And then the global. The global impact that our policies have on, you know, wars and other things.

You know, last I checked, any of our oil companies that were producing oil here under the strictest, most environmentally regulated processes that we control are not invading other countries, they're not bombing other countries, and we're supporting those things. Now, I would think that.

I don't know, maybe some people in this building believe that the $5 billion that we sent to, you know, Russia a few, two years ago and in the black flagship that we do now, maybe they think they're updating their parks. Who knows? But this is not good policy.

Not for the state, not for the constituents, not for the climate. It's not. It's not for the climate. Those ships that bring you that oil, they circle. If you, again, go to vesselfinder.com, they circle out there, right off our coastline, sometimes for days, spewing bunker fuel that is burned on these ships.

And we don't count those carbon emissions because we only count 12 miles off our coastline. That's the smell that comes from when the wind comes across to our lands.

And it doesn't make any sense that we say we care about climate, we say we care about our constituents, the health and safety of the global, the planet, and the world and other constituents. But the policy that comes out of this building doesn't support it. That's my comment. I do have a question.

So Kern county can set its own rules as well on drilling and permitting. I mean, is it reciprocal or is it just one way?

Thank you for comment, Senator. And I do want to appreciate how passionate this issue is. And I know you've been a huge champion for your communities, and I have deep, deep respect for your passion for your community. And I think we align in some other ways on some other issues.

This bill in particular would give cities and counties jurisdiction to prohibit oil and gas. I do believe there's a different case that Kern County is bringing where they, too, want local control to be able to permit more oil and gas. So this bill doesn't address that particular case. It does go the other way.

But I do think there's some common ground in terms of wanting local control and local communities wanting to be able to have a say of what's happening in their own economies, how this is affecting property rights, how this might be affecting jobs, and how this is affecting the health of the people that local communities are in charge of providing health and welfare for.

So I hope that answers your question.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Do we have any other. Senator Sayerto.

Hi. Thank you for your Bill. You know, my problem with the bill is that it flies in the face of common sense. A lot of the oil fields down in the South Bay Area in California, Torrance, and all those areas have been there a long time.

And if there is a problem with people building too close to oil fields, then the cities and counties should have been very concerned with that when they approved building next to all of the oil fields.

What this suggests is that we go back and we shut down oil fields or don't allow them to replace a well if one's not as productive in one area to another area, like in Baldwin Hills, none of those areas had housing. Those were out in the middle of nowhere. The housing got billed afterwards.

So now you're talking about a property rights taking. So are the cities and counties in question going to compensate, not only compensate these companies for taking, basically taking their land, making it useless to them, but what are they going to replace it with?

They're going to replace it with what my colleague was talking about, offshore oil and those ships that sit out there. And if the wind shifts to an onshore wind, guess what? All that comes on to the local communities, the areas that we talk about, the impact to just minority communities, minority and poor communities.

The minority and poor communities are so far away from these areas. They're five to 10 miles inland from these. The places that are around that are closest to all these oil wells, those are some of the most expensive real estate in California. So those arguments don't make sense.

If we want to shut off oil, go tell them to shut the switch off and see what happens. That would be a financial and economic disaster for California. There is a better way to do this. It's called the market. Allow people to transition themselves into cleaner opportunities if they feel like that fits their lifestyle.

But this trying to shut off all the spigots for oil that we use every day and then buy it from somewhere else and then ship it in on dirty ships flies in the face of common sense. It's not going to work. It's not working. It sounds like, oh, yes, we're very concerned about your health.

Well, where was their concern when they built these neighborhoods, some of them in the neighborhood of $5 million a house right around these oil fields, and yet those folks are not concerned about their health effects. So, you know, a lot of these have emotional arguments that absolutely don't make sense.

And we need a better energy policy for this state. Otherwise, we are going to have an economic disaster that is going to be felt by every single person in the state, and they won't be able to go backwards and fix it.

So that's why bills like this rankle me a little bit, because it uses all the great buzzwords, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on the Committee? I will just close up. Before you close, we'll just say that this bill is permissive. It ensures that local jurisdictions have authority, but are not required to use that authority, but authority to limit oil and gas development, should they choose to do so.

There's been a lot of discussion around how they. This might play out, but we just note that each circumstance here would be particular to the facts, including whether there was any property rights infringed upon. And I know there's a lot of discussion today about markets and capitalism.

As someone who went to pretty fancy business school, I'll just say there's a whole section of Econ 101 around market failures, too. And one could make the case that the overburning of fossil fuels is one of the biggest market failures of our civilization, one that we're now racing to try to correct.

And we do have to find the right balance between finding the right standards and maintaining our standards of life while trying to head off this looming catastrophe. I know because my own shorelines in Orange County were badly damaged by a pipeline spill that just happened about three years ago. So for all those reasons, I think this.

This is a commonsensical bill. Permissive bill. I support this measure today. And with that, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, chair, for those comments. I appreciate your expertise in economics and appreciate you sharing that with all of us. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assemblywoman, do we have a motion on this Bill? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is do pass is amended to local government on AB 3233. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The count on that is 7-4, and I think the bill is out. First bill out of the day. All right. With that, we'll go to our last file item of the day. File item number 16, SJR 17 by Senator Allen. Senator, you can proceed whenever you are ready.

Well, thank you. Very good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. I'm here to present SDR - SJR 17, sorry.

A resolution urging our partners in the Federal Government to establish national monuments to permanently protect the Sáttítla and Kw’tsán lands, which represent hundreds of thousands of acres of additional conservation lands that are critical to meeting our 30 by 30 goals and protect our endangered biodiversity.

These proposed monuments include the Pitt River tribes, ancestral homelands of Sáttítla and the Medicine Lake highlands, as well as the cultural homelands of Fort Yuma Kw’tsán Indian tribe.

We're privileged today to have Yatch Bamford, who's here, the Pitt River Tribal Chairman, and also Councilmember Donald Medart Junior, on behalf of the Fort Yuma Kw’tsán Indian Tribe, who's here to testify on.

Thank you so much for being here. You have two minutes each, and you can proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Greetings. I am Yatch Bamford, Chairman of the Pit River tribe. The Pit River Nation has asked President Biden and California's federal delegation to put in place national monument protections for a little more than 200,000 acres in an area known as Sáttítla.

This important area includes what is commonly known as the Medicine Lake Highlands, located about 30 miles from Mount Shasta. Being one of our most sacred places and the location of our creation narrative of our people, we have maintained our deep connections with this tribal cultural landscape.